NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108

Marine Debris Survey Manual

Christine A. Ribic

Trevor R. Dixon

Ivan Vining

U.S. Department of Commerce

April 1992
NOAA Technical Reports NMFS

The major responsibilities of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are to monitor and assess the abundance and geographic distribution of fishery resources, to

understand and predict fluctuations in the quantity and

distribution of these resources, and to establish levels for

their optimum use. NMFS is also charged with the development and implementation of policies for managing national fishing grounds, with the development and

enforcement of domestic fisheries regulations, with the surveillance of foreign fishing off U.S. coastal waters, and

with the development and enforcement of international

fishery agreements and policies. NMFS also assists the

fishing industry through marketing service and economic

analysis programs and through mortage insurance and

vessel construction subsidies. It collects, analyzes, and

publishes statistics on various phases of the industry.

The NOAA Technical Report NMFS series was established in 1983 to replace two subcategories of the Technical Report series: "Special Scientific Report -Fisheries"

and "Circular." The series contains the following types of

reports: scientific investigations that document long-term

continuing programs of NMFS; intensive scientific reports

on studies of restricted scope; papers on applied fishery

problems; technical reports of general interest intended to

aid conservation and management; reports that review, in

considerable detail and at a high technical level, certain

broad areas of research; and technical papers originating

in economics studies and in management investigations.

Since this is a formal series, all submitted papers, except

those of the U.S.:Japan series on aquaculture, receive peer

review and all papers, once accepted, receive professional

editing before publication.

Copies of NOAA Technical Reports NMFS are available free in limited numbers to government agencies, both

federal and state. They are also available in exchange for

other scientific and technical publications in the marine

sciences. Individual copies may be obtained from the

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA

22161. Although the contents of these reports have not

been copyrighted and may be reprinted entirely, reference

to source is appreciated.

Recently Published NOAA Technical Reports NMFS

96. Marine Bora and fauna of the eastern United

States-Copepoda, Cyc:lopoida: Archinotodelphyidae, Notodelphyidae, and Ascidicolidae, by Patricia

L. Dudley and Paul L. IIIg. January 1991,40 p.

97. Catalog of osteological collections of aquatic DuunDIalS CrODl Mexico, by Omar Vidal. January 1991,

36 p.

98. Marine Dl&DlDlai strandings in the United States:

proceedings of the second Dlarine DlaDlDlal

stranding workshop; Miuni, Florida, 3-5 DeceDlber, 1987, edited by John E. Reynolds III and Daniel

K. Odell. January 1991, 157 p.

99. Marine Bora and fauna of the northeastern United

States: erect Bryozoa, by John S. Ryland and Peter

J. Hayward. February 1991,48 p.

100. Marine Bora and fauna ofthe eastern United States:

DicyeDlida, by Robert B. Short. February 1991, 16 p.

101. Larvae of nearshore fishes in oceanic waters near

Oahu, Hawaii, by Thomas A. Clarke. March 1991,

19 p.

102. Marine ranching: proceedings of the seventeenth

U.S.-japan Dleeting on aquaculture; Ise, Mie

Prefecture, japan, 16-18 October 1988, edited by

Ralph S. SVJjcek. May 1991, 180 p.

103. Benthic Dlacrofauna of the New York Bight,

1979-89, by Robert N. Reid, David J. Radosh, Ann B.

Frame, and Steven A. Fromm. December 1991,50 p.

104. Incidental catch of Dlarine DI&DlDlais by foreign

and joint venture trawl vessels in the U.S. EEZ of

the North Pac:i6c, 1973-88, by Michael A. Perez and

Thomas R. Loughlin. December 1991, 57 p.

105. Biology, oceanography, and fisheries of the North

Pacific transition zone and subarctic frontal zone,

edited by Jerry A. Wethera1l. December 1991,92 p.

106. Marine ranching: proceedings of the eighteenth

U.S.-japan Dleeting on aquaculture; Port Ludlow,

Washington, 18-19 SepteDlber 1989, edited by Ralph

S. SVJjcek. February 1992, 136 p.

107. Field guide to the searobins (Prionotus and Be".

lator) in the western North Adantic, by Mike Russell,

Mark Grace, and ElmerJ. Gutherz. March 1992, 26 p.
NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108

Marine Debris Survey Manual

Christine A. Ribic

u.s. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory

Corvallis, OR

Trevor R. Dixon

The Tidy Britain Group

United Kingdom

Ivan Vining

Centerfor Quantitative Science

University ofWashington

Seattle, WA

April 1992

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Barbara Hackman Franklin, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

John A. Knauss, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere

National Marine Fisheries Service

William W. Fox Jr., Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) does not approve,

recommend or endorse any proprietary product or proprietary

material mentioned in this publication. No reference shall be made

to NMFS, or to this publication furnished by NMFS, in any advertising or sales promotion which would indicate or imply that NMFS

approves, recommends or endorses any proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned herein, or which has as its purpose

an intent to cause directly or indirectly the advertised product to

be used or purchased because of this NMFS publication.

ii
Contents

Introduction

How to Use This Manual

Chapter 1: Methodology

Definition and Categories of Marine Debris

General Monitoring Guidelines

Chapter 2: Shipboard Sighting Surveysfor Large Debris Items

General Description

Objectives and Purpose

Population of Interest

Field Measurement

Quality Assurance Program

Field Sampling Designs

Analytical Procedures

Summary

Appendix

Chapter 3: Shipboard Trawling Surveysfor Small Debris Items

General Description

Objectives and Purpose

Population ofInterest

Field Measurement

Quality Assurance Program

Field Sampling Designs

Analytical Procedures

Summary

Appendix

Chapter 4: Beach Surveysfor Small to Large Debris Items

General Description

Objectives and Purpose

Population ofInterest

Historical Information

Field Measurement

Pilot Studies

Quality Assurance Program

Field Sampling Designs

Analytical Procedures

Case Studies

Alaska Beach Surveys

The Tidy Britain Group

Summary

Appendix

iii

v

vi

1

4

8

13

13

13

13

13

17

18

18

19

20

25

25

25

25

25

30

31

31

32

33

37

37

37

37

38

39

40

42

42

47

47

48

49

53

54
Chapter 5: Benthic Surveysfar Large Submerged Debris Items

General Description

Objectives and Purpose

Population of Interest

Historical Information

Trawl Surveys

Field Measurement

Quality Assurance Program

Field Sampling Designs

Analytical Procedures

Submersible Surveys

Field Measurement

Quality Assurance Program

Field Sampling Designs

Analytical Procedures

Diving Surveys

Field Measurement

Quality Assurance Program

Analytical Procedures

Summary

Appendix

Chapter 6: Aerial Surveys

General Considerations

Aerial Photography

Conclusion

Glossary

List ofAcronyms

Citations

iv

61

61

61

61

61

62

62

63

65

66

67

67

68

69

69

69

69

71

73

73

74

77

77

77

78

79

81

83
Introduction

Over the last several years, concern has increased about

the amount of man-made materials lost or discarded at

sea and the potential impacts to the environment. The

scope of the problem depends on the amounts and types

of debris. One problem in making a regional comparison of debris is the lack of a standard methodology. The

objective of this manual is to discuss designs and methodologies for assessment studies ofmarine debris.

This manual has been written for managers, researchers, and others who are just entering this area of study

and who seek guidance in designing marine debris surveys. Active researchers will be able to use this manual

along with applicable references herein as a source for

design improvement. To this end, the authors have synthesized their work and reviewed survey techniques that

have been used in the past for assessing marine debris,

such as sighting surveys, beach surveys, and trawl surveys,

and have considered new methods (e.g., aerial photography). All techniques have been put into a general survey

planning framework to assist in developing different marine debris surveys.

We thank the following people who discussed the different survey methodologies with us: Jay Brueggeman,

Ray Highsmith, Scott Johnson, Barry Troutman, and

Heather Trulli. We thank David Redford for allowing us

to use EPA SOP No. 4-35. We thank the Center for Marine Conservation, the Environmental Protection.Agency,

the Tidy Britain Group, ScottJohnson, Linda Jones, Jeffrey June and Heather Trulli for the use of their data

forms.

We thank the following people for reviewing various

drafts and parts of this manual: James Coe, E. David

Ford, Donald Gunderson,James Herkelrath, ScottJohnson, Linda Jones, Jeffrey June, Theodore Merrell, Thomas W. Miller, David Redford, David Rugg, and Heather

Trulli.

We thank the following people for reviewing the entire

manual: Marcia Bollman (editorial review), Deborah

Coffey (quality assurance review), David Laist, Tony Olsen,

v

and four anonymous reviewers. Any remaining errors or

omissions are ours. For the technical editing of this

manual, we wish to thank Marcus Duke of the School of

Fisheries, University ofWashington.

For the Tidy Britain Group case study, the survey data

and other information were compiled as part of the Tidy

Britain Group's Marine Litter Research Programme and

from joint studies with the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea. Tim Dixon was a co-researcher, with additional support from the Keep Wales Tidy Campaign and

the University of Keele. Technical assistance was provided

by the British Plastics Federation.

We thank Cindy Helfrich for typing the many drafts of

this manual and illustrator Sandra Johnson for the cover

drawing. We thank the National Marine Fisheries Service

Marine Entanglement Research Program for the use of

their slides of marine debris, which served as inspiration

for the drawing.

The senior author's salary was provided by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. The manual has been

subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review,

and has been approved for publication.

This manual was the result of discussions held at the

Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic

Commission's Working Group on the Global Investigation of Pollution in the Marine Environment (25 September-I October 1986). The Marine Mammal Commission recommended that the National Marine Fisheries

Service Marine Entanglement Research Program take on

the effort of producing a procedures manual and drafted

the original scope ofwork for this project.

Major funding was provided by the National Marine

Fisheries Service Marine Entanglement Research Program

to the University of Washington (Contract No. 52ABNF0-00071).

Christine A Ribic, Research Ecologist

Corvallis, August 31,1991
How to Use This Manual

We do not expect the user to read this manual from

cover to cover. We expect specific chapters will be of

more interest to the user than others. Thus, we have

made the chapters self-contained. However, the general

vi

scope of this manual and discussion of the general arrangement of this manual are explained in Chapter l.

Therefore, we recommend that the user read Chapter 1 before

reading any other chapters.
Chapter 1

Methodology

In the late 1960s and 1970s, trash and other debris

of human origin in the ocean began to be recognized

as a widespread problem (Risebrough 1969;

Heyerdahl 1971; Colton 1974; NAS 1975). Various

solid materials of human origin were becoming increasingly apparent both on beaches and floating at

sea. The debris then, as now, typically included derelict fishing gear, plastic bags or sheeting, paper

products, strapping bands, rope, line, cans, bottles,

balloons, plastic pellets, wood planks, clothing, light

bulbs, rubber tubes, and gloves. These items were

either discarded or lost at sea or carried to the ocean

from land by rivers, domestic and industrial outfalls,

shoreline runoff, offshore winds, or other means of

transport. Although scattered records of seals and

other marine life entangled in such debris have been

reported for at least several decades before 1970 (see

for example Scheffer 1950), such occurrences were

considered isolated events and the growing amount

of debris was characterized as a litter problem (NAS

1975) .

Since the mid-1980s, however, many articles, papers, and reports documenting marine debris and its

effects have appeared in the popular, scientific, and

technical literature (Duerr 1980; Horsman 1982,

1985; Bourne 1983; Wehle and Coleman 1983;

Coleman and Wehle 1984; Dean 1985; Gosliner 1985;

Shomura and Yoshida 1985; Wallace 1985; Carr 1986,

1987; CEE 1986, 1987a; 1988, Clark 1986; Coe 1986;

Fowler and Merrell 1986; Azzarello and Van Vleet

1987; Bean 1987; FAO 1989; Laist 1987; Lentz 1987;

Pruter 1987, a and b; Wilber 1987; Wolfe 1987;

Augerot 1988; Gramentz 1988; Heneman and the

CEE 1988; MPDTF 1988; O'Hara et al. 1988;

Cawthorn 1989; Croxall 1990; Klemm and Wendt

1990; Parker 1990). This new information describes

problems that are far more widespread and significant than previously recognized, and it established

marine debris as another major form of ocean pollution.

The increase in amounts of marine debris over the

past several decades can be attributed to at least

three factors (MMC 1991). First, synthetic materials

replaced natural fibers in the manufacture of more

and more everyday items. Because these materials

tend to degrade more slowly in seawater, the total

amount of debris in the ocean at any given time reflects the total amount of debris entering over a

longer time period. Second, synthetic materials often

are less expensive than the natural fibers they replace, thereby decreasing incentives to reuse or

recycle items. Third, and most obvious, there are simply more ships and coastal residents that can lose or

discard materials.

The impacts from marine debris include

• aesthetic degradation (Heyerdahl 1971; NAS

1975);

• hazards to wildlife (Laist 1987; Bourne 1990; Ryan

1990a; Sileo 1990);

• economic losses (e.g., damage to boats and fishing gear and decreased tourism; Heneman and

the CEE 1988); and

• human health hazards (e.g., physical injury to

bathers, exposure to chemical packaging and possible spread of contagious disea'se [Dixon and

Dixon 1981a, 1986; High 1985; Wallace 1985;

Pruter 1987a]).

Because of the visual aspect of beach litter, beach

cleanups by volunteers have been organized to both

educate the public about the extent of the problem

and to help mitigate aesthetic effects (Neilson 1985,

Dixon 1987, HMEPA 1991). In the United States,

state-wide cleanups are now coordinated by the Center for Marine Conservation (O'Hara 1989, CMC

1991). Hazards to wildlife have been detailed in

many studies. Entanglement in discarded net fragments has been of primary concern for impacts to

marine mammals (Table 1). Ingestion of debris has

been reported most frequently for sea birds although

ingestion by sea turtles, economically important fish,

and cetaceans (Walker and Coe 1990) is of growing

concern (Table 1). Impacts on the population level

have been difficult to document (Laist 1987; Pruter

1987a; Ryan 1987a; 1988a; Ryan and Jackson 1987;

Ryan et al. 1988). The most frequently cited and controversial (e.g., Scordino 1985) case is the decline of

the northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) population

because of entanglement in discarded fishing nets

(e.g., Fowler 1987; Fowler et al. 1990). Economic

losses (Meade et al. 1990; Takehama 1990) and public health problems (Dixon 1981, 1987; Dixon and

Dixon 1981b, 1986; Wagner 1990) have been less

publicized.
2 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Table 1

Impacts of marine debris on marine animals.

Impact

Entanglement

Ingestion

Animal/Taxon

Monk seal

(Monachus schauinslandi)

Northern fur seal

(Callorhinus ursinus)

Other marine mammals

Seabirds

Turtles

Seabirds

Reference

Andre and Ittner (1980)

Balazs (1979)

Henderson (1984; 1985; 1990)

Bigg (1979)

Fowler (1982; 1984; 1985; 1987; 1988)

Fowler and Ragen (1990)

Fowler et al. (1989)

Sanger (1974)

Scheffer (1950)

Scordino (1985)

Scordino and Fisher (1983)

Scordino et al. (1984; 1988)

Bonner and McCann (1982)

Calkins (1985)

Cawthorn (1985)

Croxall et al. (1990)

Jones and Ferrero (1985)

Ryan (1990b)

Shaughnessy (1980)

Stewart and Yochem (1985; 1987; 1990)

Conant (1984)

Dean (1985)

DeGrange and Newby (1980)

Ryan (1990b)

Schrey and Vauk (1987)

Balazs (1985)

Ainley et al. (1990, a and b)

Baltz and Morejohn (1976)

Bayer and Olson (1988)

Bond (1971)

Bourne and Imber (1982)

Connors and Smith (1982)

Day (1980)

Day et al. (1985)

Dickerman and Goelet (1987)

Fry et al. (1987)

Furness (1983; 1985, a and b)

Harper and Fowler (1987)

Hays and Cormons (1974)

Kenyon and Kridler (1969)

Ogi (1990)

Parslow and Jefferies (1972)

Pettit et al. (1981)

Randall et al. (1983)

Rothstein (1973)

Ryan (1985; 1986; 1987, a and b; 1988c; 1990b)

Sileo et al. (1990)

Slip et al. (1990)

van Franeker (1983; 1985)

van Franeker and Bell (1988)

Zonfrillo (1985)
CRAFTER 1: Methodology 3

Table I (continued)

Impact Animal/Taxon

Fishes

Turtles

Marine mammals

Reference

Anonymous (1981)

Carpenter et al. (1972)

Hjelmeland et al. (1988)

Hoss and Settle (1990)

Kartar et al. (1973, 1976)

Kubota (1990)

Ryan (1990b)

Balazs (1985)

Bourne (1985)

Carr (1987)

Cawthorn (1985)

Duronslet et al. (1991)

Lutz (1990)

Plotkin and Amos (1990)

Ryan (1990b)

Sadove and Morreale (1990)

Ryan (1990b)

Sadove and Morreale (1990)

Walker and Coe (1990)

In response to growing concern over marine debris, actions have been taken by governments

nationally as well as internationally to reduce discharges at their source (Bean 1984). For example,

intentional at-sea dumping of garbage generated on

land became subject to international control as of

1972 through the Convention on the Prevention of

Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other

Matter (commonly called the London Dumping Convention). Similarly, at-sea disposal of garbage

generated during the routine operation of ships

(e.g., garbage not deliberately carried to sea for the

purpose of disposal) was addressed through a 1978

Protocol to the 1973 International Convention for

the Prevention of Pollution by Ships (commonly

called the MARPOL Convention). Specifically, the

1978 Protocol to the MARPOL Convention added

five Annexes, each dealing with a different form of

pollution from ships. Of these, Annex V established

regulations on discharging ship-generated garbage,

including a prohibition of discharging all plastics at

sea.,

National efforts to implement programs consistent

with these conventions may go beyond the specific

measures required by the international regimes. For

example, in the United States, substantial education

efforts have been mounted through the Marine Entanglement Research Program of the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). These programs

are directed toward mariners, beach users, and other

groups as well as the public at large. The programs

advise the groups about debris-related problems, new

regulatory requirements, and proper garbage handling and disposal practices.

As these efforts were implemented, it became apparent that monitoring studies would be needed to

assess the effectiveness of actions in reducing the

overall amount of marine debris as well as certain

types of debris of particular concern, such as plastics

generally, medical wastes, and fishing gear (MMC

1987). To address marine pollution monitoring

needs generally, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), part of UNESCO,

initiated a program for the Global Investigation of

Pollution in the Marine Environment (GIPME) in

1976 (Andersen et al. 1986). The GIPME program is

guided by a comprehensive plan consisting of four

stages (Kullenberg 1986): a mass balance determination (including baseline measurements); a

contamination assessment (including an evaluation

of the distribution, movement, and trends in levels of

pollutants in the marine environment); a pollution

assessment (involving an evaluation of a pollutant's

effect on marine life); and regulatory action.

To provide direction for its GIPME program, the

IOC established a Working Group to oversee international efforts. Among other things, the GIPME

Working Group 1) develops manuals on procedures

for collecting, recording, and archiving data on specific marine pollutants; 2) supports training exercises
4 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

in the use of those procedures; and 3) conducts inter-calibration exercises to ensure that data collected

by one country or group can be statistically comparable with those collected by others. As an example

of its efforts, the Working Group adopted a manual

describing a standard methodology for monitoring

tar balls and dissolved oil in seawater and on beaches

(IOC 1984) and subsequently assisted efforts to test

procedures in the manual in the Caribbean Sea area

(Corredor et al. 1987). The success of this approach

is evident from publications that have successfully

documented and described the extent of tar pollution in the Caribbean (Atwood et al. 1987, a through

c) .

Prior to 1986, the GIPME Working Group had not

addressed monitoring needs for marine debris.

Therefore, at its Sixth Session in Paris, France, on 25

September-l October 1986, it reviewed debris-related information and agreed that a procedures

manual for monitoring debris on beaches and at sea

warranted consideration. To assist in developing the

manual and to help in encouraging and guiding marine debris monitoring efforts in the U.S., the Marine

Mammal Commission recommended to the NMFS

that a manual be developed as part of the Marine

Entanglement Research Program to encourage opportunistic monitoring efforts in the U.S. and that

this manual be provided to the GIPME Working

Group for consideration in its series of pollution

manuals (MMC 1987).

Following some preliminary work on the manual,

the matter was examined further at the Second International Conference on Marine Debris held in

Honolulu, Hawaii, on 2-7 April 1989, at which time a

Conference Working Group to Assess the Amount

and Types of Marine Debris (hereafter referred to as

the Assessment Working Group) was formed (Ribic

1990). Its participants agreed that work on a procedures manual should proceed as a matter of high

priority and that the work should focus on describing

study methodologies to meet the first two stages of

the above-mentioned GIPME program plan for pollution monitoring (i.e., baseline studies and

contaminant assessment) (Ribic 1990).

In this regard, the Assessment Working Group

noted that two basic approaches have been used to

assess marine debris: open-water surveys (including

both visual sighting surveys, surface trawls, and

benthic trawls); and beach surveys. Initially, studies

most often involved beach surveys (e.g., Gregory

1977; 1978, a and b, 1987; Dixon and Dixon 1980,

1981b, 1983; Merrell 1984, 1985; Henderson and

Pillos 1985), which Dixon and Dixon (1981a) suggested were the most cost-effective monitoring

strategy for debris. However, recent attempts to directly assess debris in the open ocean, usually on vessels of opportunity, have increased (e.g., Gregory et

al. 1984; Dahlberg and Day 1985; Jones and Ferrero

1985; Yoshida and Baba 1985, a and b; Ignell and

Dahlberg 1986; Mio and Takebama 1988; Yagi and

Nomura 1988; Nasu and Hiramatsu 1990). In most

cases, the individual monitoring studies have had different objectives and different sampling designs, thus

making comparisons and broad assessments questionable (Ribic and Bledsoe 1986). A case illustrating

problems with non-standardized methodology is that

of assessing roadside litter in the U.S.; areas were not

comparable because different survey techniques were

used (Marquez and Zandi 1985).

Therefore, the purpose of this manual is to review

the sampling designs used to measure marine debris

and to put them into a framework useful to others in

planning and executing surveys to assess the types,

amount, distribution, and movement of marine debris in open water and on beaches. By doing so, we

hope that scientists, resource managers, and others

who can collect useful data will be encouraged to do

so in a manner that will be useful and help contribute to a broader understanding of the status and

trends of marine debris pollution.

This manual is divided into chapters according to

type and location of debris survey. Chapter 2 deals

with shipboard sighting surveys for larger debris in

open water, Chapter 3 addresses shipboard surface

sampling for smaller debris in open water, Chapter 4

reviews beach surveys, Chapter 5 addresses benthic

surveys for larger debris in open water, and Chapter

6 deals with the experimental approach of aerial surveys. Even though the manual is divided into separate

chapters, investigators may use two or more survey

methodologies from the separate chapters to estimate the magnitude of the marine debris problem in

a particular area. The rest of Chapter 1 discusses terminology and categories of marine debris, the

importance of defining objectives prior to starting a

survey, and general monitoring guidelines. A glossary

is provided at the end of the manual.

Definition and Categories of

Marine Debris _

As note previously, the marine debris problem was

initially characterized as a marine litter problem. The

National Academy of Sciences (1975) defined marine

litter as solid materials of human origin that are discarded at sea or reach the sea through waterways or

domestic and industrial outfalls. While the definition

is broad and remains useful, we prefer the term "marine debris" because it does not suggest impacts are
mega-debris-debris >2-3 cm

macro-debris-5 mm to 2-3 cm

meso-debris-<5 mm

micro-debris-powdered

"Macro-debris," "megalitter" (McCoy 1988; Gregory 1990), and "large plastic" (Day and Shaw 1987)

are terms used to describe marine debris visible to

the eye or with binoculars during the course of vessel

sighting surveys and beach surveys. The lower size

limit of this type of debris varied, ranging from <0.5

cm (McCoy 1988) to 1.5 cm (Morris 1980a), and up

to 2.5 cm in length (Dahlberg and Day 1985; Day and

Shaw 1987). McCoy (1988) used 7 X 50 binoculars to

make observations on a stationary ship in calm seas.

Alternately, Day and Shaw (1987) used lOX binoculars on a moving ship in variable seas. In this manual,

the following size categories for debris are used.

primarily aesthetic. The Academy's definition properly distinguished between sources of debris that

originated at sea and those that originated on land.

In this manual, the term "vessel-source" debris will

refer to material of human origin discarded in open

water. MARPOL Annex V established regulations governing the discharge of garbage during the normal

operations of ships, including a prohibition of at-sea

disposal of any plastics (Augerot 1988). An example

of vessel-source debris is fishing-related debris such

as trawl net fra?ments. "L~ndbased" debris: .in this

manual, will refer to matenal of human ongm that

reaches the sea through waterways or domestic and

industrial outfalls. Included in "landbased" debris is

litter left by beach users, material lost from coastal

landfill sites, and items such as tampon applicators

discharged through sewage outfalls. This dislinction

is important because MARPOL Annex V addresses

the problem of vessel-source debris only, whereas the

Clean Water Act addresses landbased debris (e.g.,

ocean dumping of landbased garbage and combined

sewer overflow systems) (U.S. EPA 1990b). Any marine debris sampling scheme, especially surveys done

on land, must recognize that sampled material may

originate from both sources.

Marine debris may be classified based on size. This

type of distinction is important because size will influence the way debris is dispersed and deposited, the

wildlife impacts that may occur, and what type of survey approaches may be practical. The Assessment

Working Group (Ribic 1990) proposed the following

debris categorization by size:

small debris <2.5 cm (not visible by eye

in water), e.g., polystyrene pellets, fragmented plastic

CHAPTER 1: Methodology 5

medium debris ~2.5 cm and :5;10 cm, e.g.,

styrofoam cups, tampon applicators

large debris >10 cm and :5;1 m, e.g.,

bleach bottles, gillnet floats

very large debris >1 m, e.g., derelict fishing

net

The boundary of 2.5 cm can be justified because

MARPOL Annex V regulations state that material released from ships will be ground to <2.5 cm. The

distinction among the other categories, while more

arbitrary, is based on sizes of the major debris items

often found on beaches.

There are many categories used for medium to

very large debris by studies done in open water

(Table 2). Researchers usually identified individual

items to produce an exhaustive list and then grouped

the debris into major categories. The general groupings used have been similar. The debris items are

usually organized according to what the items are

made from (e.g., paper, rubber, plastic, wood, glass,

metal), the manufacturer's intended use (e.g., fishing gear, ropes, bottles), or a combination of the two.

The major categories have typically been fishing gear,

plastic, styrofoam, glass, wood, metal, paper, and miscellaneous. Fishing gear was usually subdivided into

nets and other gear (including plastic floats). Sometimes plastic and styrofoam were put into one

category. Wood was mostly divided into natural (e.g.,

logs) and man-made (e.g., boxes). In some studies,

cloth, cardboard, and rubber were separated into major categories. Most of the open-water studies did not

state that particular debris items were of interest,

though some of the categories used tended to reflect

that interest (e.g., the emphasis on fishing gear in

the studies of Mio and Takehama 1988 and Nasu and

Hiramatsu 1990; [Table 2]). Beach debris surveys

tended to use categories that reflected specific study

objectives (Table 3). For example, because Merrell

(1985) emphasized entangling debris, his list reflects

that interest (Table 3). Willoughby (1986) emphasized man-made materials with long degradation

times; thus, his list did not include paper or cardboard (Table 3). One of the most general lists is that

used by the Center for Marine Conservation (CMC)

(formerly the Center for Environmental Education),

with 59 individual items (CEE 1988 [Table 3]; form

can be found in Appendix 4). The CMC's list parallels the major categories used in the open-water

studies with one exception: fishing gear is put into

the plastic category. Classifying fishing gear can be

problematical because the category is one of function rather than material from which the object is

made. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(1990b) categorized fishing gear by material, so net-
6 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Table 2

Debris categories used by open-water sighting surveys for medium to very large debris (pieces >2.5 em).

Reference

Venrick et aI. (1973),

Morris (1980a)

Dixon (TJ.) and Dixon (1983)

Dahlberg and Day (1985)

Mio and Takehama (1988)

Vagi and Nomura (1988)

Categories

plastic bottles

plastic fragments

glass fishing floats

glass bottles

rope

balloon

finished wood

shoebrush

rubber sandal

paper items

coffee can

plastic bags

cups

sheets

packing material

bottles

fragments

timber

rubber

nylon rope

feathers

glass bottles

paper items

man-made wood items

paper

cardboard

nylon rope

netting

plastics and styrofoam

metal

glass

plastic

styrofoam

metal

glass

paper

cloth

wood

net gear

plastic bands

other fishing gear

styrofoam

other plastic articles

pieces of wood/drifting logs

seaweed

other

styrofoam

buoys

plastic sheets/bags

fishing net fragments

rope

wood

glass

metal

other

Comments

List of items found; categories not

set up in advance

List ofitems found; categories set up in

advance

48 individual items listed
CHAPTER 1: Methodology 7

Table 2 (continued)

Reference

McCoy (1988)

Nasu and Hiramatsu (1990)

Categories

plastic

wood

other (paper, cloth, or unidentified)

artificial objects:

fishing gear

net

fishing gear other than nets

other than fishing gear

pieces of wood

petrochemical products

styrofoam

glass and metal products

natural objects:

seaweed

logs

other:

unknown

Comments

ting is found under plastic while buoys are found under the polystyrene category. The National Park

Service (Cole et al. 1990) used the category "Plastic

Fishing Gear," which is a combined material and

function category.

Most categories are self-explanatory and require

no specific knowledge for use (e.g., rope, styrofoam

food containers); however, some others such as buoy

bags (Merrell 1985) and crustacean pot floats (Cole

et al. 1990) may require more definition. Few studies

conclusively define each debris category. The most

detailed list of definitions was found in Appendix B

of Cole et al. (1990), where over 50 debris categories

were listed; this appendix was used to define debris

categories in the glossary of this manual.

For medium and large debris categories, we recommend that researchers organize lists of items first by

material type (i.e., plastic including foamed plastics

[styrofoam], glass, metal, rubber, fiber [cloth], wood,

paper) and then, under these primary categories, develop secondary categories according to function or

manufactured product (e.g., fishing gear, bottles,

medical use). All individual items would be listed under one of these primary or secondary categories, or

both. We recognize that complete standardization of

Day et al. (1990a) glass

metal

paper/fiber

rubber

wood

plastic

categories is not possible owing to specific study objectives and debris unique to the particular area. An

example of this was the expansion of the CMC form

from 59 to 200 items by the harbor studies program

(U.S. EPA 1990a).

For small debris, all the studies in Table 4 occurred

in open water and used similar categories. The items

identified by the Assessment Working Group (Ribic

1990) as being most important to record are reflected in the studies in Table 4.

Primary categories by material can be developed

similar to medium-size and larger debris categories.

For small debris, color and size may become important in determining the likelihood that different

species may detect and ingest debris. Additional subcategories based on size and color would be useful

for small debris. Size categories could be based on

the most common size for pellets. Because most pellet sizes fall between 1 mm and 6 mm (Carpenter and

Smith 1972; Carpenter et al. 1972; Gregory 1977,

1978a, 1983, 1990), three categories-<1 mm, 1-6

mm, and >6 mm-can be used. Color categories

could be based on Day et al. (1985, 1990b), who used

11 colors (transparent, red/pink, blue, yellow, white,

tan, green, brown, black/gray, orange, miscellaneous).
8 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Table 3

Debris categories used by beach surveys for medium to very large debris (pieces >2.5 cm).

Reference

Dixon and Cooke (1977)

Merrell (1985)

Willoughby (1986)

Vauk and Schrey (1987)

Center for Environmental

Education (1988)

Cole et al. (1990)

Categories

plastic

glass

metal

paper

trawl web

straps-open

straps--closed

trawl floats

synthetic line

bait containers

gillnet floats

bottles

caps and lids

fragmen ts-hard

fragmen ts-soft

buoy bags

six-pack yokes

other

plastic bags

footwear

styrofoam

bottles

tins

ropes and netting

lamp bulbs

plastic

paper

metal

glass

fishing gear

clothing

foodstuff

wood

plastic

glass

styrofoam

metal

paper

man-made wood

rubber

plastic fishing gear

plastic packaging material

personal effects

miscellaneous plastics

Comments

Counting containers; 21 individual items

listed

Only man-made materials with long

degradation times counted

Individual items enumerated; then put into

categories

59 subcategories

51 items listed

General Monitoring Guidelines _

The Assessment Working Group (Ribic 1990) divided

marine debris studies into baseline and assessment

categories. By definition, baseline studies were designed to determine the characteristics of the debris

problem (e.g., what type of material is found). Baseline studies for marine debris are generally carried out over large geographical areas with low sampling frequency. Assessment studies, however, were

considered to be more focused in their objectives.

Two examples of assessment studies are measuring

density of debris in certain areas and measuring

changes over time (i.e., trend monitoring). Assess-
CHAPTER 1: Methodology 9

Table 4

Debris categories used by open-water sampling studies for small debris (pieces <2.5 cm).

Reference

Colton etal.

(1974)

Day et al. (1985)

Ryan (l988b)

Day et al. (1990b)

Categories

white opaque polystyrene spherules

translucent to clear polystyrene spherules containing

gaseous voids

opaque to translucent polyethylene cylinders or discs

styrofoam

sheets of thin, flexible, wrapping material

pieces of plastic

fragments

monofilament line fragments

pellets

polypropylene line fragments

styrofoam

miscellaneous/unidentified

industrial pellets

pieces of manufactured items

fibers

styrofoam/other foamed plastics

pellets

fragments

styrofoam

polypropylene line fragments

miscellaneous line/threads

Comments

10 color categories used

9 color categories used (color when

wet); 3 categories of wear used

II color categories used

ment studies tend to be more limited in geographical

area and have more intense sampling efforts. This

split in the types of studies reflects the ideas of

Barnard et al. (1985), who divided monitoring studies into two types: descriptive monitoring and

location-specific monitoring. Other researchers (Gilbert 1987) do not distinguish between the two types

of studies and refer to the baseline and assessment

studies collectively as monitoring studies in contrast

to research studies (e.g., research studies to determine the transport of pollutants through the

environment). In this manual, we use the framework

in Table 5, which presents the survey types relevant

to marine debris surveys. In terms of the baseline and assessment study definitions made by

the Assessment Working Group (Ribic 1990), surveys

with objectives 1-4 (Table 5) are assessment

studies, whereas studies with objective 5 (Table 5)

are baseline.

Whether or not the studies are baseline or assessment, good planning is essential to collect useful

information. Advice in this manual is organized by

the planning guidelines of Gilbert (1987):

1 State the objectives clearly.

2 Define the population of interest.

3 Collect information on the geographic areas

of interest to develop the sampling plan (e.g.,

physical features, weather patterns, historical

information) .

4 Define the field measurement to be made.

5 Examine data from previous studies or conduct

pilot studies to approximate the likely variability

in the field measurements.

6 Develop a quality assurance program plan to ensure that the data collected will be of high

quality, verifiable, and defensible.

7 Develop field sampling designs and measurement

procedures that will yield representative data

from the defined population, along with a specified variance or confidence limit. If necessary,

make decisions on identifYing the source of debris (vessel-source versus landbased).

8 Determine the statistical analyses to be used.

9 Conduct the study according to the written protocol.

10 Analyze the data.

11 Evaluate the study (e.g., were the objectives

met? Were the collected data adequate to meet

the stated objectives? Should the design be

modified?) .
10 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Table 5

Marine debris study objectives adapted from Lettenmaier et al. (1982).

Objective

(1) Surveillance

(2) Model parameterization

(3) Cause-effect

(4) Trend detection

(5) Baseline

Description

Detect impact of known pollution source or detection of point source pollution (e.g., spills).

Need frequent sampling, possibly continuous monitoring.

Example:

Cargo spill (Dixon and Dixon 1981b)

Polystyrene spherules (Kartar et al. 1973, 1976)

Provide data on time and space scales to allow identification of input decay rates; linked to

prediction. Sampling is frequent and intense in a small area for a short time period.

Example:

Population dynamics of marine debris (Gerrodette 1985)

Identify functions relating input and output; assess present conditions. Sampling is frequent and

intense in a small area for a short time period.

Example:

Turnover rates for debris on beaches (Dixon and Cooke 1977;Johnson 1988, 1990a)

Analyze time series for evidence of changes in a statistical sense. Long sequences of observations

at frequencies on the order of weekly or monthly at stations scattered throughout a large area.

Example:

Assessment of changes of trawl web over time (Ribic and Johnson 1990)

Assessment of changes in total debris over time (Ribic 1991)

Assessment of changes in total plastic over time (johnson 1990a)

For little or no pre-existing data; establish the level of the problem. Low sampling frequencies.

Spatia!. density depends on problem (local problem will result in more concentrated stations;

problems covering a large area can result in dispersed stations).

Example:

Nationwide beach surveys (O'Hara 1989,1990)

Clearly defining and stating the objectives cannot

be overemphasized. The objectives can be as simple

as determining the kinds of debris occurring on a

particular beach to as complex as determining a decrease in the amount of entangling debris seen on

Alaska beaches as a consequence of MARPOL Annex

V. Explicitly stated objectives guide the development

of the sampling design from defining the population

of interest to what data are collected and how they

are analyzed. Stating objectives also sets the scope of

the study and data analyses, which is important given

that no single sampling design can answer all questions of interest, as is evident from Table 5.

The population of interest in marine debris studies

is often associated with a geographical area. Examples of populations of interest include net

fragments in the North Pacific Ocean, domestic waste

in the North Sea and tar in the Caribbean. Mediumor larger-sized debris on Texas beaches can also be a

population of interest. Populations of interest can

have a temporal component, such as large debris on

Texas beaches in the fall or net fragments in the

North Pacific during the fishing season. It may be

that only certain areas are available for study. For

example, only beaches with good public access or

ocean areas visited regularly by vessels of opportunity

may be available for study. Then the population of

interest (e.g., debris on all beaches) is not available,

and only a subset (e.g., debris on public beaches) is

available. Given such restrictions, the target population (population of interest minus the restricted

areas) may not be truly representative of the larger

population of interest, unless certain assumptions

can be made and tested (e.g., debris composition on

private beaches is not different from that on public

beaches). Deciding on the target population is important because that population will be used to

define the sampling frame from which representative

units for measurement are chosen. A "representative

unit" is a unit selected from the sampling frame in

such a way that it, in combination with the other representative units, will give an accurate picture of the
phenomenon being studied (Gilbert 1987). Another

word for representative unit is "sampling unit" (the

term used in this manual). Typical sampling units for

marine debris studies are beaches or transects on

beaches, areas of ocean scanned, area swept by surface sampler, and area swept by demersal trawl.

Information on the physical environment, weather

patterns, and site history may be useful in planning

the sampling design. For example, wind direction

plays a large part in the deposition of debris on

beaches in the United Kingdom (Dixon and Dixon

1981a). Therefore, in this situation, information regarding offshore and onshore winds is important for

determining sampling times. For open-water studies,

information on currents or areas where debris are

concentrated can be used to decide where the sampling should be concentrated (i.e., stratification

variables). In addition, surface drift experiments may

be used to identify sampling conditions in relation to

oceanographic conditions (e.g., onshore currents).

This aspect is considered further in the individual

chapters.

Defining the field measurements is important and

is discussed in more detail in the individual chapters.

Issues that must be resolved are defining what will be

measured, what the sampling unit is, how the measurements will be taken on the sampling unit, and

what field methodology will be used. These ar"e critical elements of geographically-based surveys such as

those for marine debris. The sampling unit may be a

fixed area of ocean with the measurement being

counts of all items >2.5 cm. The field methodology

may be a strip transect. All of these issues should be

resolved before the start of the field work and noted

in the quality assurance program plan discussed

below.

Pilot studies play a critical role in survey design,

particularly for large-scale or long-term surveys (or

both). Pilot studies play a key role in training for

field measurement techniques, preliminary assessment of debris sources (which may change the

design), and assessment of debris variability in the

sampling units over the geographical area of interest.

Pilot studies also are invaluable for determining cost

and effort to complete the survey. Then, study objectives can be modified or new objectives stated

becal,lse of sampling constraints found during the

pilot study (e.g., available resources, type of equipment on hand).

Quality assurance program plans have not been described for many published surveys, and we are

uncertain whether many studies have had one.

Quality assurance activities help to make studies repeatable. Detailed descriptions of what was done

(e.g., standardized procedures) can be used by other

CHAJYrER 1: Methodology 11

researchers to help design their surveys. In addition,

if many people are involved in a study that is conducted over a long time period, the quality assurance

program plan provides a unified set of directions to

follow. Quality assurance program plans address measures that will describe data quality. They should

contain a training element such that the accuracy

of data collected by volunteers can be assured. On

a more personal level, the plan should incorporate procedures that maintain a safe working

environment.

Developing field sampling designs and measurement procedures that give representative data

requires a statistical assessment. Sample size requirements are determined, a procedure for choosing

sampling units is developed, and precision and statistical power are discussed. Developing a sampling

design is the most problematical task for a study.

There may be many sampling designs to choose

from, but each design is likely to have different effects on results and require different effort for the

survey. Field sampling designs will be addressed in

the individual chapters.

Certain statistical analyses are appropriate for most

studies of marine debris. These are called descriptive

statistics (e.g., means, variances, plots of data) and

exploratory data analyses (e.g., box plots). All are

available in a wide variety of computer packages. The

more difficult decisions are made when there are statistical hypotheses to be tested. How to test for

changes in trend over time or changes in mean level

over time are questions that can be addressed in a

variety of ways. In general, there are parametric and

nonparametric statistical methods. Both approaches

have strengths and weaknesses. The scope of this

manual precludes discussion of these in detail. Standard statistical texts (e.g., Conover 1980; Sokal and

Rohlf 1981) should be consulted; Gilbert (1987) presents a discussion on detecting changes in trend.

Evaluating the study design is critical. Sometimes

changes in design are made owing to problems in the

field as they arise. In addition, as more is learned

about the problem of interest, objectives and study

designs change. For example, the beach surveys in

Alaska started by Merrell (1985) have changed from

a general survey of trawl webbing on beaches to focus

on detectable changes that may be due to MARPOL

Annex V. The effect of this particular change is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.

Individual chapters follow the 11 guidelines of Gilbert (1987) with an emphasis on guidelines 1, 2, 4,

and 7. The other guidelines are discussed when appropriate. In all cases, investigators are encouraged

to discuss design and data analysis procedures with a

statistician.

Chapter 2

Shipboard Sighting Surveys

for Large Debris Items

General Description _

This chapter discusses open-water sighting surveys

whereby all floating debris are identified and

counted from an elevated platform on a moving ship.

Transect width may vary from 100 m to the visual

horizon depending on the type of debris being studied. Surveys are usually conducted from the

glare-free side of the ship, and objects are sighted

visually either unaided or with binoculars.

Sighting surveys collect information on the distribution and amounts of floating, medium to very

large debris in areas of the open water during specific time periods. Baseline surveys have been done

in the North Pacific Ocean using vessels of opportunity (Dahlberg and Day 1985; Ignell 1985; Jones and

Ferrero 1985; Ignell and Dahlberg 1986; Mio and

Takehama 1988; Day et al. 1990a; Mio et al. 1990;

Nasu and Hiramatsu 1990; Shaw 1990). Vessels of opportunity also have been used to survey areas of the

North Sea (Dixon (TJ.) and Dixon 1983) and the

Mediterranean Sea (Morris 1980a). Dedicated vessels

have been used in assessment studies to detect temporal trends in the North Pacific along 137°E

longitude between 0° and 34°N latitude (Yagi and

Nomura 1988). Other studies have resurveyed areas

to look for temporal changes; for example, Day and

Shaw (1987) surveyed the Gulf of Alaska along 155°

longitude in 1984 and 1985.

Objectives and Purpose _

Typical objectives for open-water sighting surveys are

as follows:

• to identify types of floating marine debris;

• to estimate densities of floating marine debris;

• to identify areas of low or high concentrations of

floating marine debris relative to either oceanographic features (e.g., currents, convergence

zones) or man-made structures (e.g., offshore oil

platforms) ;

• to relate floating debris to entanglement or other

effects on animals; and

• to detect temporal and spatial changes in the occurrence of marine debris.

Population of Interest _

In planned studies, debris in specific oceanic areas

comprises the population of interest, which must be

defined by the researcher. For example, fur seal researchers were interested in the amount of floating

net debris around the Pribilof Islands, the breeding

rookeries for northern fur seals. Therefore, floating

net debris in a specific area around the islands during the fur seal breeding season was defined as the

population of interest, and surveys were conducted

in that area (Yoshida and Baba 1985b; Baba et al.

1988; 1990). Alternatively, the population of interest

can be as large as all the debris in the North Pacific

Ocean (Mio and Takehama 1988; Mio et al. 1990;

Nasu and Hiramatsu 1990). Defining the population

of interest is determined by the objectives of the

study.

Restrictions to the population of interest are likely

when surveys rely on vessels of opportunity. In such

cases, areas of the ocean are surveyed not because of

any particular sampling plan but because that is the

ship's destination. This restriction often is not stated

by authors, who may generalize the debris in the

sampled area to an entire oceanic area without any

justification for doing so. We basically consider it inappropriate to generalize results from vessels of

opportunity studies.

Field Measurement _

The most common variables of interest for openwater sighting surveys are density (number/km2) and

types of medium to very large debris.

Description

Observer(s) on a moving ship stand on the flying

bridge or other elevated section. Observer heights

above the water line and speed of ship will vary according to the type of ship. Using the glare-free side

of the ship for observation, observer(s) visually scan

for objects floating on the ocean as the ship moves

through the area. Binoculars are generally not used

13
14 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

to sight objects; instead, they are used only to confirm the identity or to help estimate sizes of objects.

The number of observers on a survey varies (1-10).

The Assessment Working Group (Ribic 1990) recommended that a minimum of two observers be empLlyed in any survey. Survey transects must be defined in terms of width and length: the survey width

(i.e., the maximum distance from the ship's side in

which debris will be censused) may vary, in part, depending on the number of observers; length of

transect is defined as the straight-line distance covered by the ship during an observation period.

Observation periods may be defined in terms of time

periods of constant sighting conditions, vessel speed,

and direction. Length is then calculated by recording

beginning and ending location (latitude/longitude)

or by calculating the distance traveled using the

ship's speed at the start of the transect, or both (the

latter method assumes the ship is moving at a constant speed). If vessel's speed or course changes, then

new coordinates, speed, and time must be recorded.

Options

Strip Transect-In a strip transect, only objects

within a specified distance from the side of the ship

are counted (Fig. 1). All objects are assumed tQ be

seen within that strip and any objects seen outside

the specified distance are not counted (e.g., object 1

in Figure 1 is counted; object 2 is not). Common

strip widths are 50 m (Day and Shaw 1987; Day et al.

1990a) and 100 m (Dixon (T. R.) and Dixon 1983).

The actual strip width used will depend on the study

objectives. Other researchers have counted all debris

seen without regard to a specified strip width and

then have truncated the data at certain distances for

analysis (e.g., 50 m, Dahlberg and Day 1985; 10 m,

Mio and Takehama 1988). Appendix 2A contains a

protocol by the Tidy Britain Group for using strip

transects to estimate debris density.

Line Transect-All objects are counted regardless of

the distance from ship, and the perpendicular distance from the object to the ship is measured

(Fig. 2). Two other variables-the distance of the object to the ship at the time of first sighting and the

angle of observation (Fig. 2)-can be measured and

converted to a perpendicular distance. While these

latter two variables have been recorded most frequently (Dahlberg and Day 1985; Mio and Takehama

1988; Nasu and Hiramatsu 1990), perpendicular distance (Mio et al. 1990) is preferred (Burnham et al.

1980). When the latter two variables are measured,

the measurement errors inherent in both variables

900 : W__-r

···

· •

o

o

o

SHIP

o

o

o

SHIP

Figure 1

Schematic diagram of a strip transect. W =

specified strip width. The dark circle indicates the observer, and the strip is between 0

and 90°. Object 1 is inside the strip and is

recorded while Object 2 is outside the strip

and is not recorded (even if observed).

Figure 2

Schematic diagram of a line transect. Pi = perpendicular

distance of object i to ship, rj = distance from object i to

observer at time of sighting, and 8j = angle between

object i and observer at sighting.
CHAPTER 2: Shipboard Sighting Surveysjor Large Debris Items 15

result in errors in perpendicular distances that are

difficult to correct. When perpendicular distance is

measured, errors can be dealt with by using distance

classes (Burnham and Anderson 1984). For example,

instead of using all distances as recorded, distances

can be grouped into distance classes (e.g., 0-5 m,

5-10 m). Errors made in estimating an object 6 m

from the ship, versus 7 m, are then unimportant because the data are analyzed in terms of distance

classes rather than individual distances.

It is beyond the scope of this manual to present a

detailed discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the line- versus strip-transect method. Both

have strengths and weaknesses (Burnham and Anderson 1984). The strip transect method requires that all

objects be seen in the strip of width w, but distance or

angle measuremen ts are unnecessary. Bias in the

density estimate results from objects being missed

within the strip, from objects along the strip perimeter mistakenly being included or excluded from the

ship, from observer differences (e.g., experience differences, fatigue), from the physical setting (e.g.,

weather, speed of travel), and from variability in the

objects (e.g., color, size, shape).

The line transect method requires four assumptions: 1) objects on the line are detected with

certainty; 2) objects do not move in response to the

observer before detection; 3) perpendicular distance

data are accurate; and 4) detections are independent. For sighting marine debris, the first and third

assumptions are the two most likely to be violated.

The first assumption can be handled by having one

observer watch the center line. The third assumption

will be difficult to fulfill given the problems of estimating distances at sea; however, training observers

to estimate distances at sea would be an important

part of the quality assurance program plan. Biases

due to observer differences, the physical setting, and

object variability are incorporated into the analysis of

the perpendicular distances.

Of the two methods, theoretical studies by Burnham et al. (1985) suggest that, in terms of increased

efficiency and lower bias, the line transect method

gives better density estimates than the strip transect

method. If an observer at sea can accurately measure

angles and distances or accurately use distance classes, the line transect method is preferred (Ribic 1990).

Variables to Consider

Weather-Avoid making observations when conditions restrict visibility. For example, Yoshida and Baba

(1985b) made no observations when visibility fell below 200 m. Sea state has also been used to determine

when observations should take place. For example,

Dixon (T.].) and Dixon (1983) restricted observations to sea states (based on a combination of wind,

waves, and swell height) of 3 or less, whereas Shaw

(1990) used sea states of 4 or less, and Day et al.

(1990a) did not sample when high waves could have

affected "sightability."

Characteristics of Marine Debris-Various authors

(Dahlberg and Day 1985; Jones and Ferrero 1985;

Mio and Takehama 1988) have noted that color,

size, shape, and buoyancy of objects affect their

sightability. Currently, no data are available with

which the problem can be evaluated. When using a

strip transect approach, trials could be undertaken

with materials of known characteristics deliberately

placed at different distances from a vessel or in varying weather conditions to determine sighting

probabilities.

Vessel Variability-Ship's speed and observer's

height above the water will affect marine debris

sightings (Mio and Takehama 1988). While the importance of these variables has been noted, no data

are available to determine optimal height of ship

speed for marine debris surveys. If all data are combined into one set, the sighting differences due to

vessel variability add to the variability in the data.

Measurement Variability-Exact measurements are

critical for the data analysis stage (Burnham et al.

1980). Most studies have estimated angle and distance from the ship to the object at first sighting with

no indication that the accuracy of the data has been

checked. If the perpendicular distances are discovered to be inaccurate, the analysis can still proceed

by putting the distances into distance classes

(Burnham and Anderson 1984). Distances can be

measured with a range finder or binoculars with

reticles. Distance classes (e.g., 0-10 m, 10-20 m, etc.)

can be set up prior to the study and used instead of

measured distances. Accuracy of distance classes will

still be important because the boundaries between

classes must be identified.

Data Collection

Researchers should collect the following data.

• date

• time at start of transect

• duration of transect (time elapsed)

• location (latitude/longitude) at start of transect

• distance traveled during transect:

ship's speed at start of transect (the transect

should be stopped if the vessel changes speed)

location at end of transect (latitude/longitude)
16 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

• sighting condition-visibility, wind speed and direction, cloud cover, sea state, direction of sun relative

to ship's course

• a list of all items sighted by classification (see Chapter 1), location at sighting, and distance/angle

measurements (if line transect)

• comments

Note that the first five items in the above list are

necessary whether Qr not debris is sighted on a

transect. This information is used to calculate the total

number of transects made, effort, and area surveyed.

A transect is defined as the straight-line distance between the starting and ending locations of the ship or

the straight-line distance traveled for the duration of

the transect based on the ship's speed at the start of

the transect. In both cases, the ship's course must not

change during the observation period.

Forms for collecting debris sighting data have not

been standardized, and few researchers have published their data forms. Figure 3 is a suggested data

Observer Name(s) Starting location - lat/long

Vessel Name Ending location - lat/long

Date (Yr/Mo/Day) Time: Start transect

Sea state (Beaufort) Time: End transect

Visibility Ship's speed at start of transect

Weather Wind: Speed

Direction

Time Classification Object Perpendicular Size Comments

(plaatic, wood, etc.) Distance (m)

Figure 3

Suggested data form for open-water mega-debris sightings.
CHAPTER 2: Shipboard Sighting Surveysfor Large Debris Items 17

form, and Appendix Figure B (this chapter) is an

example of a data form used by the Marine Mammal

Observer Program to collect marine debris information. Debris information is substituted for species

information (L.L. Jones, NOAA, National Marine

Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, WA, pers. commun.

February 1991).

Material and Personnel

The basic equipment needed for sighting debris is a

pair of binoculars (e.g., 8X40, 10X50) to identify

sighted objects. Typical costs for high quality binoculars are $300-1,000 (1991 U.S. dollars). Perpendicular distances can be measured with a range

finder or binoculars with reticles and compass

($500-1,000). Clipboards, pencils, and data forms

will be necessary to record the data (approximately

$200). A tape recorder may be useful for documenting and verifying observations.

The major cost of a dedicated debris survey at sea

is the ship. Ship costs are related to vessel size, equipment, and trip duration. For example, a vessel about

38 m (125 ft) long for high seas travel and that fulfills

the NOAA requirements for doing small cetacean

sighting work will probably cost in excess of $6,600/

day, not including fuel cost. Therefore, for a I-month

cruise, the ship alone would cost approximately

$198,000 (excluding fuel costs). An observer's travel

expenses and salary are additional. The salary of the

observer needs to be a minimum of $3,000/mo to

compete with other observer programs (L.L. Jones,

NOAA, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, WA, pers. commun. February 1991). Other

expenses might be necessary, such as extra equipment (e.g., a wrench and hook to retrieve nets).

Thus, for two observers, the 338 m (125 ft) ship, and

travel expenses (e.g., $1,000 per observer), a

I-month cruise could cost over $216,500. Larger

vessels (e.g., NOAA research vessels like the Oceanographer and the Miller Freeman), are much more

expensive (for estimates, write Director, Pacific Marine Center, NOAA, 1801 Fairview, Seattle, WA

98102). Surveys near the coast will be able to use

smaller ships, which may rent for as low as $1,000/

day (L.L. Jones, NOAA, National Marine Mammal

Laboratory, Seattle, WA, pers. commun. February

1991) .

Given the high cost of a dedicated research cruise,

researchers usually use research vessels scheduled for

other purposes. This "vessel of opportunity" research

considerably lowers the cost (to $8,000 in the preceding example) because the researcher will only have to

pay for travel, room, and board. Assuming $10/day

for room and board, the cost for a I-month cruise

will be less than $1,000 for two people for the use of

a ship compared to $30,000 to $200,000+ when chartering a vessel. The trade-offs are in the great

restriction of the population of interest and the

availability of such cruises. Additional expense can be

saved if biologists or oceanographers (volunteers)

make debris sightings between their primary research

tasks. For volunteer-collected data, quality assurance

of the collected data will be an important issue

that needs to be resolved before such a program is

implemented.

Required personnel includes at least two observers experienced or trained in sighting objects

floating at sea and who also have training or experience in the use of equipment to measure distances

and angles. Because experienced observers see more

than inexperienced observers, an inexperienced observer should be paired with an experienced

observer. Whenever possible, for different cruises

during the study, the same observers should be involved in the field work to help control observer

variability (Day and Shaw 1987; Dixon (T.R.) and

Dixon 1983).

Quality Assurance Program _

Unfortunately, publications describing results of

open-water sighting surveys have not described or acknowledged a quality assurance plan. Some details of

importance for ensuring quality data from open-water sighting surveys are as follows:

• What is the population of interest, and what is the

population actually available for sampling (i.e., restrictions to the sampling frame; Guideline 7,

Chapter I)?

• What is the justification for concluding that the target population represents the broader population

of interest?

• How is a transect defined (e.g., strip or line

transect, how wide, how long)? How is the transect

selected for sampling?

• How is the sighting survey to be carried out (e.g.,

how many people, how is debris sighted and verified [with or without binoculars], what side of the

ship will be used [one or both], how high above

the water will the observer be, what are the restrictions on sighting conditions, how fast will the vessel

travel) ?

• How experienced are the observers in sighting objects at sea?

• Were the observers trained to estimate angles and

distances at sea? How were they trained?
18 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

• Were devices or procedures used to aid in making guidelines can be stated. More published informaand verifying these measurements? tion is available regarding open-water distribution of

Of critical importance to the sighting survey is esti- marine debris in the North Pacific than in any other

mating the distances (and angles, if necessary) from ocean body (Mio and Takehama 1988; Mio et al.

the ship to the debris object. Most ships have a com- 1990; Nasu and Hiramatsu 1990). There is probably

pass on the flying bridge that can be used to measure ~nough information available to establish survey

angles. Distance or distance classes can be measured hnes for regular monitoring (as suggested by Nasu

by visual estimation, or with either a range-finder and Hiramatsu 1990). How one picks the areas or

(which can be as simple as a set of calipers or a card- survey lines depends on the objectives of the survey.

board triangle) or binoculars with reticles. A If a survey of general debris trends over time is the

range-finder or binoculars with reticles can only be goal, transect lines in areas known to concentrate deused when the horizon is clear. Poor visibility due to bris may be desirable (e.g., northeast to northwest of

fog or low clouds and sea state (i.e., the horizon is the Hawaiian Islands [Nasu and Hiramatsu 1990]). If

obscured by the swells and the ship's pitch is ex- ~he goal is to monitor conditions in an area of special

treme) will affect the use of these items. Appendix 10terest (e.g., near the Pribilof Islands [Yoshida and

Figure A (this chapter) contains an example of aBaba 1985b; Baba et al. 1988]), then transect lines

range-finder to estimate the outer boundary of the obviously should be located in that area regardless of

strip and contains a figure explaining the use of the possible surrounding concentration points.

range-finder. Practical advice and further references The number of surveys needed also depends on

concerning the estimation of distances and the use of the objectives. Ribic and Bledsoe (1986, 1990) prorange-finders at sea can be found in Gould and duce~ ~ome sample size estimates based on a specific

Forsell (1989). Along with consultation with experi- defi~1tiOn o~ a transect for estimating density of

enced observers, this information should be used to float1Og debns. The study did uot consider stratificaprepare a detailed training session for observers to tion because of insufficient information. Because

ensure the quality of the collected distance measure- ~revious information indicated that debris was sparse

ments. 10 the open ocean, estimates of sample sizes needed

In addition to carrying out the survey, the ap- were large (and probably impractical on a large

proach for data entry and analysis is outlined. For scale) based on the nonparametric approach of

example, who will check the data to ensure correct Burnham et al. (1980).

entry? What analysis techniques will be used and Given the constraints of open-water surveys done

why? Obviously, all such details need not be put into ~n vess~ls of opportunity, the typical sampling design

a published paper; however, the quality assurance IS a senes of systematic transects made along the vesprogram plan should be referenced with key features sel track with the number of transects determined by

noted in publications to the extent possible, and de- the number of observers and sighting conditions.

tails should be available to interested parties on Even with a dedicated cruise, logistical constraints

request. Appendix Figure A (this chapter) contains will usually preclude a completely randomized dedetailed instructions used by the Tidy Britain Group sig~. For large oceanic areas, a systematic survey

to carry out strip transects. deSIgn would be the alternative in most cases, as seen

As a practical matter, funding agencies should re- in the design of many NOAA National Marine Fisherquire and review the quality assurance program plan. ies Service surveys (Rice and Wolman 1982; Bakkala

If a governmen t agency is funding the study, they and Wakabayashi 1985).

may wish to codify the study protocols as Standard

Operating Procedures (SOP), (e.g., see EPA SOP in

Appendix Figure B, chap. 3). Analytical Procedures ----------

Field Sampling Designs _

The actual sampling design depends on the objectives of the project. Is the survey a baseline study or

an assessment study? If it is an assessment study, is it

to develop model parameters or to detect changes in

space or time (see Table 5 in Chapter I)? Given the

large areas of ocean to be considered, some general

Burnham et al. (1980) give detailed procedures for

analyzing line transect data, including an available

computer program named TRANSECT. Most re~

searchers used strip transect estimates even when line

transect information was collected (Dahlberg and

Day 1.985; Mio and T~ke~ama 1988). For the sighting

functiOn model used 10 hne transect estimation, both

Nasu and Hiramatsu (1990) and Mio et al. (1990)

used a hazard rate model that was developed for

whale sighting surveys.
CHAPTER 2: Shipboard Sighting Surveysfor Large Debris Items 19

1\

For a strip transect, density (D) (number/km2

) is

estimated by

where

1\ n D=--

2Lw

n = number of objects counted,

L total length of all the transects

(km), and

w 1/2 the width of the strip transect

(km).

Confidence intervals can be calculated (Burnham et

al. 1980). Testing hypotheses regarding density estimates between areas and between years can be done

with a variety of parametric and nonparametric statistical methods. Avoid combining data sets from

different areas when observations from each area

were made in different years because area differences

will not be distinguishable from yearly differences.

Analysis of the data set depends on the objectives of

the study, and a statistician should be consulted.

1\ k 2)' . For a line transect, density D (number/ m is estimated by

Summary _

See Burnham et al. (1980) for further details.

• Density of marine debris is the preferred field measurement.

• Strip and line transect methodologies are available

for density estimation. More discussion is necessary

before the preferred methodology can be chosen

for marine debris surveys.

• At least two observers should be used.

• Debris should be sighted by visual observation; binoculars should be used to identify or verify item

classification and to estimate distances.

• Cost considerations make dedicated surveys for

baseline studies unlikely. Vessels of opportunity (see

Glossary) are the usual method. Inherent restrictions on the population of interest should be

recognized and considered.

• If the same cruise track is resampled over time,

temporal trends can be assessed using vessels of

opportunity.

• Because of the relative sparseness of debris in

the open ocean, large numbers of transects are

needed.

• A quality assurance program plan should be developed describing sampling design, field methods,

and data analysis.

• A statistician should be consulted at the survey

planning stage and should be involved throughout

the study.

the estimated probability distribution function at zero distance

1\

(based on the function f (x,O) fit to

the perpendicular sighting distances) (units are l/km), n =

number of objects counted, L = total length of all the transects (km).

1\ b = nj(0,9)

2L

where bi = densityestimate for transect i (number/

km2),

Ii = length of transect i (km),

R = total number of transects, and

L = total length of all the transects (km).

Each individual transect can be used to estimate

the variance of b:

Exploratory data analysis can be done to compare

densities between areas or latitude/longitude bins.

1\

where f (0,9)
20 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Appendix

METHOD FOR MEASURING 100 METERS OUT FROM llfE SIDE OF llfE

SHIP DEPENDING ON llfE HEIGHT OF llfE OBSERVER ABoVE WATER

LEVEL

~: It is important that only the items of litter seen within the 100-

meter band are recorded. Others will make all the results wrong.

1. The position of the ship at the start of recording (lat. and long.).

2. The ship's speed in knots.

3. Your height above the water in meters.

4. The approximate wind speed and direction.

5. The time ever 5 minutes.

6. The ship's position at the end of your recording (lat. and long.).

7. Number of litter items seen within each 5-minute period of time.

8. Identify as closely as you can every item of litter you see. What

it is made out of is especially important. If you cannot tell, do not

guess!!

9. Can I clearly see the whole of the width of the sampling area.

from the side of the ship out to 100 meters?

Any item of floating litter seen within the l00-meter band can be

described, if it cannot be fully identified, e.g.:

1 egg box, polystyrene, undamaged

1 paper cup

1 plastic sheet about 6 feet long and 2 feet wide

2 wooden planks about 3 feet by 2 feet

8 cardboard sections all about 2 feet square and corrugated

cardboard

plastic container, washing up liquid

OL....J---------- -=--l

..~.----------100rrmo_--------••

Using the guide above, cut out a paper or cardboard triangle that

is at the required angle given for your height above the water. This

angle is given by a line drawn between point A and your height above

the water. Keeping the right angle of the triangle towards you, look

along the remaining edge ofthe triangle out from the side of the ship.

Where this meets the water. that point will be 100 meters out from the

side of the ship:

WHAT Do I RECORD ABOUT llfE FLOATING LJmR SEEN?

If a particular item caimot be identified, then simply record it as

one item made of one of the following:

1. wood 6. plastic

2. fishbox 7. polystyrene

3. all paper and 8. metal drums of all sizes

cardboard items 9. glass bottles, containers, fishing

4. fishing net floats, etc.

5. rope

As a general rule, items which cannot be described at all should

be listed as unidentified. The purpose ofthe survey is to collect

information on the materials making up the litter as well as the number ofitems seen.

T.I. Dixon

The litter at sea survey works on

the following idea:

Record the time every 5 minutes.

All items of litter recorded in each 5-

minute period have been seen in the

area shaded. This area is 100 m wide

and 5 minutes long. Ifthe ship's

speed is recorded, then tliis area can

be easily worked out. From this the

number of litter items/km2 can be

estimated. This figure can then be

compared with any other measured

anywhere else, if the same method - has been used.

100m

5 min ---t----l

WHAT Do I RECORD?

The litter at sea survey is designed to produce information on the

distribution of all floating, Il)an-made material which can be seen

floating on the water from a ship.

The system depends on several factors which will affect its

accuracy.

1. How rough is the surface of the sea? Is it too rough to see everything floating? A wind offorce 3 or more usually causes too

many waves to allow the observer to see everything within a band

100 m from the side of the ship.

2. The density of floating litter, or how much litter there is in an

area can only be measured accurately by 'sampling.' This means

that everything seen within a known area should represent the

amount oflitter floating in an area much larger all around. By

'sampling,' this amount can be estimated from the small area

being measured.

Appendix Figure A

Offshore marine litter survey (The Tidy Britain Group).
CHAPTER 2: Shipboard Sighting Surveysfor Large Debris Items 21

SUGGESTED RECORDING HEADINGS FOR EACH TRIP

Date Ship's name

Ship's route (destination)

Ship's speed

Ship's position: Stan Finish

Wind speed

Wind direction

Number of

Time items Description

Appendix Figure A (Continued)
~s;%.e ~. /knot

~:~~

nylon, polyprop, etc.)

22 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

RECORD OF SHIPBOARD OBSERVATIONS OF DERELICT FISH NETS

AND DISABLEMENT OF VESSELS BY MARINE LITTER

Thi' form 'hould be included in your ship's Marine Mammal Report which

is forwarded to: Platforms of Opportunity PrOQram, NMMl, 7600 Sand Pt.

Way N.E., Bldg. 4 Seattle, HA 98115 (F/NWC3)

DERELICT NET OBSERVATION:

NAl-1E OF VESSEL _

LOCATION QF NET (LORAH or coordinates) _

DATE _

REPORTER (name, address, phone) ------------------ DESCRIPTION OF NET:

Stretch-mesh size

~~terial (monofil

Color -------------------------- Twine diameter _

Attached floats (number, description) _

Estimated siz;! (length. volume, etc.) _

Number and tyne of marine mammals, birds, fish in net _

If possible, take photographs and forward ~a1l representative. sample of

net and floats to above address.

VESSEL DISABLEMENT:

NAME OF VESSEL _

LOCATION OF DISABLEMENT (LORAH or coordinates)

DATE _

CONTACT FOR FURTHER INFCP,:\ATICN _

CAUSE OF DISABLEMENT:

Net Rope Sheet plastic Other

OESCRIPTIOtI OF DEBRIS:

Material (monof11 nylon. polyprop, etc.) _

Color _

Size (length, volume, wt., etc.)

Twi ne diallleter ---------------------- Floats attached (number, description) ------------- Stretch-mesh size --------------------- Corrective Action (tow to port, cleared without assistance, divers)

ADO MY ADOIlIOtW. REMARKS ON REVERSE OF THIS FORM.

(HMML' will forward this form to NMFS' Auke Bav La.boratory)

Appendix Figure B

Offshore marine litter data form used by NOAA/National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Marine Mammal

Sighting Program.
3. LATITUDE (degrees/minutes/l0thsl-N/S

4. LONGITUDE (degrees/minutes/lOthsl-EIW

CHAPTER 2: Shipboard Sighting Surveysfor Large Debris Items 23

MARINE MAMMAL SIGHTING FORM

* 0.0 NOT FILL IN BOXES PRECEo.ED BY AN ASTER ISK

1. NAME RECORD ID *o=IIrn

VESSEL 1 2

2. DATE (Yr.lMo.lDay) & TIME (local) OF SIGHTING L..L...L......L

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

ITIITI

18 19 20 21 22

0

23

ITIIIIJ

24 25 26 27 28 29

0

30

7. BEHAVIOR _

5. SPECI ES _--::- _

Common name

6. NUMBER SIGHTED _

Scientific name

±_---

IT]

33 34

C.1. *0

36

TENTATIVE *0

35

CIIIJ

37 38 39 40

* IT]

45 46

8. ANGLE FROM BOW

(10'5 of degrees)

IT]

47 48

9. INITIAL SIGHTING DISTANCE

10's of meters OTI

49 50 51

10. VISI BI L1TY . 11. SEA STATE (Beaufort) _

13. WEATHER _

15. PLATFORM CODE * [IT]]

56 57 58 59

12.VISCODE D

52

14. SEA SURFACE TEMP (0 C) ± 0 CD

53 54 55

16. TIME ZONE ±D rn

60 61 62

17. How did you identify animal(s)? Sketch and describe animal; associated organisms;

behavior (include closest approach); comments.

*

Appendix Figure B (Continued)

Chapter 3

Shipboard Trawling Surveys

For Small Debris Items

General Description _

To sample floating small (and some medium) debris

from a moving vessel, a surface sampler (e.g., neuston net) is pulled along the sea surface to collect

debris. The lowest size of the small debris sampled

depends on mesh of the net used. The upper limits

of medium debris sampled depend on the size of the

opening (mouth). The density of debris is calculated,

and the distribution of the debris is mapped.

Most studies of small floating debris have been

conducted in conjunction with large surveys of fish

larvae or plankton; such surveys typically cover large

oceanic areas (e.g., North Atlantic-Colton et al.

1974; southeastern continental shelf and slope water

of the United States-van Dolah et al. 1980; sea surface off the southwestern Cape Province of South

Mrica-Ryan 1988b). Some surveys have been made

in harbors and bays (Trulli et al. 1990; U.S. EPA

1990b; Yukinawa and Mio 1990). Most, if not all, of

the studies to date concerning floating small debris

would be considered to be baseline studies (see Table

6 for sources).

Objectives and Purpose _

Typical objectives are as follows:

1. Estimate types and quantities of small debris,

2. determine distribution of small debris, and

3. assess changes in the types and amounts of

small debris in given areas over time.

Population of Interest _

As with sighting surveys, various types of debris in a

large oceanic area are usually the populations of interest. The population of interest can be as small as

the floating debris in harbors (Trulli et al. 1990; U.S.

EPA 1990b; Yukinawa and Mio 1990) and as large as

floating debris in coastal and oceanic waters between

Cape Cod and the Caribbean Sea (Colton et al.

1974). While smaller areas can usually be surveyed

easily, surveys of large oceanic areas are more problematical. In this case, small debris surveys are typically conducted in conjunction with other oceanographic surveys (i.e., vessels of opportunity). Restrictions to the population of interest can arise. For

example, in studies done in conjunction with large

surveys of fish larvae, the areas chosen and the survey design used are appropriate for the objectives of

the fish larvae survey, and not necessarily for the debris survey. Whether or not a restriction of the

population of interest exists and whether or not it is

significant in relation to the objectives of the debris

survey have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Field Measurement _

The number, type, density, and weight of small debris

in a strip transect are common variables of interest.

Description

A surface sampler (e.g., a neuston net) is deployed by

1 or 2 people to sample the surface water while the

ship is moving at speeds usually <5 knots. The net is

placed on a boom so that it can sample water surfaces outside the ship's wake, either to the side of the

ship or forward of the bow. The vessels used by a

harbor studies program are shown in Figure 4. The

amount of time the net is sampling (or alternately,

not sampling) is calculated by one person watching

the net during the tow. The net may be equipped

with a flowmeter to measure the volume of water

sampled directly (Carpenter 1976), although debris

may foul the flowmeter, causing it to fail. The width

of the strip is determined by the width of the opening (mouth) of the net used (Table 6). Length of the

transect is the straight-line distance traveled, determined by the ship's speed during the transect and

duration of tow. Lengths of transects from previous

studies varied from 0.065 nmi to 13 nmi (Table 6). In

areas of high debris density, lengths will be shorter

because the net can be towed only until it is full.

Longer tows are typically made in areas of low debris

density; short tows (e.g., 2 min in length) may miss

25
26 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

A OSV Peter W. Anderson

) )

' ....~--Forward stay

Aft sta)'J-'--~:>..........

1x2x4-m neuston

net, O.33-mm mesh

~~~~~:----~~~-TeleSCOPing boom

)

t

Whaler

B Whaler

Figure 4

Example ofsampling

vessel equipped with

telescoping boom

(from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [199Gb]).

..........

I-...,.

1x2-m Neuston net. i'sleeve

O.33-mm mesh

~Fixedboom

O.5x

the small debris entirely. The size of debris sampled

is determined by the mesh size of the net (Table 6).

Larger mesh sizes do not collect all of the smallestsized debris.

Variables to Consider

Weather-If the sea is too choppy, tows should not be

made because the net will be submerged or be completely out of the water, and it will not sample the

surface waters. In addition, debris may become

resuspended in the water column below the level of

the net. Tows should not be made in strong winds

because the net will sail out of the water.

Net mesh-The size of debris collected by the surface

sampler depends on the size of the net mesh. Ultimately, the particular debris of interest will influence

the net mesh size. Carpenter (1976) and the U.S.

EPA (l990b) recommend using a net mesh of 0.333

mm to sample polystyrene spherules. We therefore

recommend that 0.333-mm mesh net be used in most

cases because it will catch most sizes of small debris.

Ship's Speed-Most tows are made at speeds of 5

knots or less (Table 6), although some larger mesh

nets may be used at speeds up to 7 knots. The ship
CHAPTER 3: Shipboard Trawling Surveysfor Small Debris Items 27

Table 6

Examples of nets used to sample floating small debris.

Net Description Length of

Reference Net mesh of tow tow (nmi)

Austin and Stoop- 3/4 opening plankton net Not 5-min surface Not stated

Glas (1977) stated tow

Environmental Neuston-type net with dimensions: 0.33 m 30-min tow at Variable

Protection Agency 1 X 2 X 4 m, 0.5 X 1 X 4 m, 0.5 X 1 X 2 knots depending

(1990b); Trulli et al. 2m on slick

(1990) size and

debris

density

Carpenter et al. Oblique plantkton tows with 0.5-m 0.333 mm Not stated Not stated

diameter at mouth

Carpenter and 1-m diameter neuston net 0.33mm 30-min. to 1-3

Smith (1972) 6-1 /2-hr tows

at 2 knots

Colton et al. (1974) 2 X 1 m rectangular neuston net 0.947 mm 10-min. tow at 0.83

5 knots

Day and Shaw Ring net (l.3-m mouth diameter, 0.333 mm lO-min tow at a.50

(1987) 4.5-m length) 5.6 km/h

Day et al. (1990b) Sameoto neuston sampler: 0.5 m 0.500 mm 10-min tow at 0.33

wide X 0.3 m high X 0.6 m long 2 knots

FAO (1989) No details given 1.4cm 20-min tow at 0.83-1

2.5-3 knots

Gregory et al. Sameoto andJarozynski aluminum- 0.475, -l-hr tow at 4-6.5

(1984) framed otter-style neuston net (6lkm 0.860 mm 4-6-'/2 knots

wide mouth), 0.860 mm or

0.475 mm net mesh (40 cm X

40 cm or 60 cm X 40 cm)

Morris (1980a) Neuston sledge 0.32 mm 20 to 45-min 0.67-3

tows at 2-4

knots

Morris and Hamilton Lowestoft plankton sampler 0.270 mm Not stated Not stated

(1974)

Ryan (1988a) 1.57 m X 0.42 m rectangular 0.90 mm 2-min tow 0.65

neuston net at 1 m/sec

Shaw (1977) Sameoto and Jarozynski seston 0.363 mm 15-min tow

tow: 0.4 m wide mouth at 4 knots

Shaw and Mapes Sameoto andJarozynski seston 0.363 mm 1 nmi

(1979) tow

van Dolah et al. 1 m X 2 m Boothbay neuston net 0.947 mm 10-min tow at 0.84-0.87

(1980) 2.5 m/sec or

15-min tow at

1.8 m/sec
28 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Table 6 (continued)

Reference

Yukinawa and Mio

(1990)

Wilber (1987)

Wong et al. (1974)

Net

Ring net with 1.4 m diameter

mouth

1 x 0.5 m neuston net

80 cm X 30.5 cm Kohl scientific

model neuston net

Net

mesh

1.7 mm at

mouth,

0.5mm

at cod end

0.333,

0.500 mm

0.150 mm

Description

of tow

10 min at

3 knots

1 nmi

10 to IS-min

tows at 4-5

knots

Length of

tow (nmi)

0.5

0.67-1.25

must be going faster than the tide in bays and sounds.

For nets with a 0.333-mm mesh, we recommend a towing speed of approximately 2 knots. The duration of

the tow depends on the amount of debris in the water;

however, a tow should be made for at least 10 min.

The duration of the tow also will be influenced by

other ship operations and will have to be determined

on a case-by-ease basis. The speed of the ship should

be such that there is no backwash.

Data Collection

The following information should be recorded each

time a sampler is·deployed.

• time of day

• location

• date

• volume of water sampled (if the net has a flowmeter) or time the net is not sampling rounded to

the nearest 0.25 min (if net does not have a

flowmeter); without a flowmeter, duration of sampling equals duration of tow minus duration of

net not sampling

• distance traveled: starting and ending position

(latitude/longitude) or duration of transect and

ship's speed

• width of sampler (fixed by choice of net)

• sea state and tidal conditions

• presence/size of debris concentrations (if sampled) / current features

Few forms have been pub\ished for recording

sample collection. Appendix Figure A (this chapter)

contains the sample collection form used by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (1990b). Figure 5

contains a suggested data form for use with surface

sampling, and Figure 6 contains a suggested data

form for sorting samples.

Material and Personnel

Basic equipment needed for sampling small debris is

as follows:

• To collect the samples:

neuston net (surface sampler) and all equipment

needed to deploy the net

log forms (sample collection) (see Figure 5)

• To analyze the samples:

pre-weighed vials

bottles to store samples/labels for the vials

trays for sorting and drying samples

forceps (to sort samples)

magnifying glass (to identify samples)

data sheets (for sarqple analysis) (see Figure 6)

gloves

30-L bags for medium debris

No standard surface sampling net is available; Carpenter (1976) describes a variety of nets, although no

prices are given. The Sameoto and Jarozynski (1969)

net will cost about $75 (1991 U.S. dollars), while

other neuston nets may cost $100-$300 (1991 U.S.

dollars) depending on mesh size and type of frame

used Ua Halstead, Research Nets, Inc., Bothell, WA,

pers. commun. August 1991). Square-mouthed nets

will give a less variable area sampled than ring nets

(H. Trulli, Battelle Memorial Institute, Duxbury, MA,

peTS. commun. January 1991); therefore, squaremouthed nets are preferred over ring nets.

Budgeting $1,500 for supplies should cover the incidental items.
CHAPTER 3: Shipboard Trawling Surveysfor Small Debris Items 29

Ending Location:

Total _

Observers:

Ship:

Tow/sample No.

Starting Location:

Time: Start _

Time Not sampling _

Ship's Speed at Start of Tow:

Width of sampler:

Date (Yr/Month/Day):

Sea State or Tide:

lat

long

End _

Time Sampling _

lat

long

Comments: e.g.• (a) unusual weather conditions. (b) problems encountered while sampling.

Figure 5

Suggested data form for collecting surface samples ofsmall debris.

The major cost of the project is ship time, as discussed in sighting surveys (Chapter 2). For sampling

inshore waters arid harbors, smaller boats may be

used, thus reducing costs as noted in Chapter 2. For

example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(1990b) used 5 m (17 ft) Boston Whaler skiffs in

some of the harbor surveys. In all cases, the ship

must have a retractable boom for net deployment or

must have the capacity for a fixed boom (Figure 4).

Required personnel include researchers who are

experienced in or trained in the use of a surface sampler. Training in safety issues is essential, including

potential health risks from handling landbased

wastes such as hypodermic needles.
30 NOAA Techlllcal Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Tow/Sample Number Wet/Dry Weight

Item Presence of Color Wear Shape Length Width Encrusting Biota

,.

Figure 6

Suggested data form for analysis of surface samples of small debris.

Quality Assurance Program _

Most published papers give enough information to

understand how the study was done. Putting the information into a standard format would facilitate

comparison between studies. Suggested information

in a quality assurance program plan includes the following:

• choice of the population of interest and any restrictions to it

• details on sampling design

• description of sampler including dimensions,

mesh size, and net maker

• definition of tow length

• how the tows were carried out (ship's speed,

transect duration, net deployment)
CHAPTER 3: Shipboard Trawling Surveysfor Small Debris Items 31

• sorting/handling of materials (sorting and storage), including proper handling of hazardous

wastes

• key for identifying material

• storage of material (who is responsible and the

location of material)

• data handling (checking and storage of data,

sample tracking)

• data analysis procedures

The EPA's Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection has a Standard Operating Procedure for the

Collection and At-Sea Processing of Neuston Samples

(SOP No. 4-35) (U.S. EPA 1987). We modified this

SOP to reflect marine debris. Appendix Figure B

(this chapter) contains a suggested SOP potentially

applicable to collecting small floating debris.

Field Sampling Designs _

Ribic and Bledsoe (1986, 1990) addressed the question of sample sizes for small debris surveys. They

assumed that the small debris was randomly distributed in the ocean and was not concentrated in any

areas. However, some evidence suggests that debris

can be concentrated in certain areas by currents and

other oceanographic and weather conditions. Random samples from nonuniformly distributed debris

will yield tows with varying amounts of material, and

the variance estimate from the tows will be large. Because sample size calculations depend on an estimate

of variability, large variance estimates increase the

number of required samples, a problem that has

been noted by researchers studying tar balls (Butler

and Morris 1974). For obvious debris concentrations

such as drift lines, Carpenter (1976) recommended

sampling perpendicular to the concentration or doing circular transects. An alternative is to collect

more samples in the concentrated areas to better define the area ,of concentration, and then to use

declustering techniques (Isaaks and Srivastava 1989)

to make an overall assessment. If the objective of the

study is just to find out what is in an area to determine types of debris, sampling the concentrations

will be useful (e.g., U.S. EPA 1990b).

Because most researchers rarely do both sighting

surveys for large debris and surface sampling for

small debris (exceptions are. Day and Shaw 1987; and

Day et al. 1990, a and b), the sampling designs for

the two techniques are often considered separately.

However, the sampling designs discussed in Chapter

2 for sighting surveys can be used for surface sampling of small debris. Since many of the vessels of

opportunity used for small debris sampling were governmental research ships carrying out large-scale fish

egg and larvae surveys (Colton et al. 1974; Carpenter

et al. 1982; Ryan 1988a), the design used for the

small debris surveys was the same as the fish egg and

larvae surveys: systematic sampling in a grid. Sampling both large debris and small debris would be

possible using a systematic sample on a grid. An important design consideration would be the distance

between the sampling stations (i.e., the possibility of

sighting the same piece of large debris from two different stations should be zero). But one potential

sampling design would be to sample the small debris

at the points on the grid and carry out sighting surveys as the ship is in transit between points. A second

possibility would be concurrent sampling, which may

be possible depending on the amount of debris in

the area. For example, if the small debris surface

sampler is towed for 1 hour, then sighting surveys

may be done concurrently. Alternatively, if the surface tow is only made for 10 min, concurrent sighting

surveys would b~ questionable, particularly if the

density of larger debris Was low (i.e., few larger debris

items would be seen in 10 min).

Analytical Procedures _

Handling of Material

After collecting a sample, most researchers washed i't

and put it into a bottle for further analysis (see Table

6 for references). A few researchers froze the sample

or fixed it in a seawater-formalin mixture or in alcohol (e.g., 70% ethanol). Preservation is preferable to

freezing because freezing may crack the debris,

changing its size. The material in each tow was classified as to category and measured. Table 3 (Chapter

1) lists some categories that could be used in sample

analysis. We recommend that the material be classified as to color and, if possible, wear. Encrusting

biota (which indicate length of time at sea) also

should be noted. The material in each tow should be

weighed and counted. Most studies have not specified wet or dry weight. We recommend using dry

weight measurements, but in all cases investigators

should indicate whether wet or dry weights are used.

When dry weight was specified, material was dried at

room temperature for 1 day (van Dolah et al. 1980)

to 1 week (Day et al. 1985). Figure 6 contains a suggested sample analysis form.

Analysis of Data

Data are transformed into estimates of density (number or weight/km2). The equation for density follows
32 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

the strip transect estimate given in Chapter 2. There

are two ways to determine length of the tow (km):

1. (duration ofsampling) (speed ofvessel), or

2. straight-line distance between the starting and

ending coordinates (adjusted for distance the net

was not sampling). 11

The density of (D) (amount/km2) is as follows:

nonparametric analyses, depending on the objectives

of the study. Data collected from different areas in

different years should not be compared because area

differences cannot be distinguished from yearly differences. For data collected on a grid, geostatistical

techniques may be useful for estimating density over

large areas (Isaaks and Srivastava 1989).

L (R - 1)

11

The variability of (D) (Burnham et al. 1980) can be

calculated as:

R 11 11

Ll;D; - D)2 11 11 Var (D) = _i=--=-I _

where l; = length of tow i (km),

D; = density estimate for tow i (in km2),

R = total number of tows, and

L = total length of all the tows (km).

~ensity of small debris (number/weight per km2)

IS the preferred field measurement.

The mesh of the sampling unit should be 0.333

mm, which will sample most small debris of interest.

Tows should be made at speeds of 2 knots for at

least 10 min. The duration of the tow will be influenc.ed by the amount of debris and ship

operatIOns.

Cost considerations make dedicated surveys for

baseline studies unlikely.

If the restriction to the population of interest is

acceptable, vessels of opportunity that sample the

same large oceanic area over multiple years

should be useful for assessment studies.

Variability in amounts of debris per tow can be

large, thus increasing the required sample size

(number of tows) for a given level of confidence.

The data are collected with a strip transect methodology, with the width of the net defining the

width of the strip.

A quality assurance program plan should be prepar~d that details sample design, sample collectIOn, sample processing, and data analysis.

A stat.istician should be consulted at the survey

plannmg sta~e and should be involved through

the completIOn of the study. Experienced researchers should be consulted concerning the use

of equipment (e.g., surface samplers, boat handling) .

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Summary _

width of the mouth of the net (km),

total length of all the tows (km), and

number or weight (g) of collected debris

in all trawls.

11 n

D= Lw

The data can be a!1alyzed in a variety of ways depen.di~g on the study objectives. General descriptive

statIstIcs (such as percent composition of the debris

from each sample or percent composition of all debris from a harbor) are useful as are maps;

exploratory data analysis can be used to look at differences between areas and over time. Confidence

intervals for the density estimate can be calculated

(Burnham et al. 1980) or various hypotheses concerning density can be tested with parametric or

where w

L

n
CHAPTER 3: Shipboard Trawling Surveysjur Small Debris Items 33

Appendix

BATTELLE

Harbor Studies Program

Neuston Sampling Log

Date --- Harbor

DO M YY (NY,BO,GA,LA,PS)

Slick No. Slick Location

Replicate/'l'ow No. Sampling Platform

Start TDl TD2 Tillle

Coo rdi na te·s : Lat N Lon W (24 h)

Finish TDl TD2 Time

Coordinates: Lat N Lon W (24 h)

FIELD MEASUREMENTS Collector'. Initials:

Weather: Sea State: Wind: Speed kt

<code) (code) Direction a

Net rrame Size: 1. Dill x 2.0m Mesh Size: 0.11llDl

O.SIIl X 1.Om - O.311llD - - O.SIIllD -

- Tow Area: Area of Tow - Duration of Tow h x

Speed of Net Through the Water ==kt x.

Width of Net (Tow) m

--.-

Slick '1'ype: Slick Area: sq III

(Type 0-4 From Survey Plan) (visual estimate)

LABORATORY SAMPLES COLLECTED IlmmllmllUl~mmlmmlllll Sample Types Collected for Sample Number *AAltS88 *

(Initial Here and On Labels)

-- Large Debris -- Small'Deb~is

COMMENTS:

Scientist:

(White - DATA MGR Yellow - PRGM MGR Pink - FIELD COORD GOLD - P.I.)

Appendix Figure A

Example of a sampling log used during EPA Harbor Studies Program survey (U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency 1990b)
34 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Preparation _

Supplies and Equipment

1. Two aluminum neuston net frames, 0.83 m X

1.85 m X 0.04 m

2. Two nylon neuston nets, 0.333-mm mesh size

(must fit aluminum frame)

3. Laundry detergent

4. Stainless steel bridle (for each neuston net

and frame)

5. Shackles (0.63 em or 1/4 in)

6. Kevlar cable-0.95 em (3/8 in), or 0.95 em

(3/8 in) nylon line

7. Nylon braided line (0.32 em or 1/8 in)

8. Hose clamps (various sizes)

9. Plastic jar (1 L)

10. Sorting trays

11. Forceps

12. Squirt bottles (for rinsing nets)

13. Clear tape

14. Labels

15. Log sheets

16. Cod-end bottle (i.e., 500 ml teflon) (also

called a "net bucket")

lO"tlap

(passes inside

thetrame)

Securing

line

Frame 1-1naluMinum tUbing

~33'FL

Neuston frame

and net

a

b Neuston net

with attached

bridles

~lIowire rope

Appendix Figure B

Preliminary standard operations procedures for sampling surface small debris. Adapted from the plan described in the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (l990b) Harbor Studies Program.
CHAPTER 3: Shipboard Trawling Surveysfor Small Debris Items 35

The registered trademarks and materials suppliers are referenced for reader convenience in

replicating experiments and do not represent endorsement by the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency.

Cleaning

No special cleaning procedures are required for

collecting neuston samples for small debris analysis. Equipment can be washed with detergent at

the end of the sampling period. Netting may also

be solvent-cleaned if soiled with grease or tar.

Assembly of Net and Frame _

1. Match each pair of the four flaps bordered

with grommets at the mouth of the neuston

net (2 opposed flaps = 0.9 m and 2 opposed

flaps = 1.9 m) with the appropriate sides of the

neuston frame as shown in Figure a.

2. By threading the 0.32 cm (1/8 in) braid

through the grommets and around the frame,

secure the flaps of the net to the aluminum

frame. Ensure that the frame attaches to the

outer surface of the net flaps. The net passes

through the frame as shown in Figure a.

3. Mter securing the net to the frame, remove

the two 0.63 cm (1/4 in) stainless steel bridles

(Fig. b) from the case.

4. Arrange the two towing bridles so that the

longest cables (one for each bridle) are directed away from the net and so that the short

cables (two for each bridle) are directed toward the net.

5. With 0.63 cm (1/4 in) shackles, connect the

two short cables of each bridle to the aluminum tabs provided on each corner of the

neuston net. Shackle the short cables of one

bridle to the left side of the frame and the

short cables of the other bridle to the right

side of the frame.

6. With a 0.63 cm (1/4 in) shackle, connect the

free ends of the bridles together (if not already done).

7. With a stainless steel hose clamp, attach a I-L

precleaned glass jar to the cod end of the nylon neuston net.

8. With 0.79 cm (5/16 in) cable clamps and

thimbles, terminate each end of the 45 m (150

ft) section of Kevlar cable or nylon line with

an eye splice.

9. With a 0.79 cm (5/16 in) shackle, attach one

end of the Kevlar cable to the 0.63 cm (1/4

in) shackle that joins the two bridles.

Preparations for Deploying the

Net and Components to be Used

for Collecting Samples _

1. Request that the Captain slow the ship to towing speed (2 knots) before arriving on station.

2. Rig the main towing sheave to the last segment

of the telescoping boom.

3. Carry the assembled net, bridle, and tow cable

(or nylon line) to the area of deployment.

4. Thread the tow cable or nylon line through

the sheave mounted on the boom.

5. Take up the slack (by hand) and tie off the

tow cable (or nylon line) to the bits, forward

of the deployment area.

Net Deployment _

1. With the boom fully extended, signal the

winch operator to lower the boom over the

side of the ship. This procedure will lower the

net into the water and extend it well beyond

the wake of the ship.

2. Mter the boom has been completely lowered,

deploy the Kevlar or nylon tow cable until half

of the neuston frame (0.42 m) remains submerged below the surface of the ocean.

3. Inform the bridge to mark the time for the

start of the neuston tow.

4. Record the requested information on a Neuston Sample Log form.

5. Tow the net for IO-min at a speed of 2 knots or

until full. In rough seas, estimate the time the

net completely leaves the water or completely

submerges while being towed.

Net Retrieval

At the end of the 10 min towing period, retrieve

the net using the tow cable (or line) .

Processing Samples _

1. Discard all water retained in the jar at the cod

end of the net.

Appendix Figure B (continued)
36 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

2. Loosen the hose clamp that secures the cod

end to the net.

3. Support the cod end of the net over a tray and

separate the cod end from the net.

4. Empty the contents of the jar and net into the

tray. Larger material may have to be removed

from the mouth end because it cannot pass

through the cod end.

5. Rinse all net surfaces into the tray.

6. Transfer contents of the net into prelabeled

jars (l L) or bags.

7. Precautions:

a. Small and lightweight items are easily lost in

windy conditions and extra care must be

taken.

b. Rubber gloves and protective clothing

should be worn because of possible diseasebearing debris (e.g., from combined sewer

overflow systems).

Documentation and Labeling _

Record all required information on a Neuston

Sample Log. If, during a neuston tow, it becomes

necessary to alter the procedures outlined in the

SOP or to deviate from the guidelines appearing

in the quality assurance program plan, make sure

that a Sample Alteration Form (U.S. EPA 1990b) is

completed for that particular tow.

Training

All personnel responsible for the collection and

preservation of samples must perform satisfactorily under the direct supervision of a qualified

supervisor. This includes the proper implementation of safety guidelines.

The proficiency of the trainee will be observed

throughout the entire survey. The supervisor will

judge the ability of the trainee to process debris

samples.

Appendix Figure B (continued)
Chapter 4

Beach Surveys

for Small to Large Debris Items

General Description

On-land or beach surveys can be classified into two

types: 1) where debris on a particular beach is of

intrinsic interest (beach-focused studies); and 2)

where debris on the beach is an indicator of oceanic

conditions (ocean-focused studies) (Ribic and Johnson 1990). Beach surveys are known to give a

distorted picture of the composition of marine debris

owing to different fates of materials at sea (Dixon

and Dixon 1981a). To date, no attempts have been

made to assess what proportion of debris discharged

from ships at sea later washes ashore. Some surface

drift experiments using plastic and glass bottles (i.e.,

the release of bottles at sea and their recovery on

land) have achieved high recovery rates in the North

Sea (Dixon and Cooke 1977). Beach surveys integrated with at-sea surveys are a potentially powerful

tool.

To assess marine debris on a beach, surveyors

count and classify individual debris items or record

them as present or absent. Debris mayor may not be

removed from the beaches depending on study objectives. Entire beaches or smaller sections

(transects) may be surveyed. Individual pieces of

small debris are usually counted within randomly

placed or predetermined transects; small debris generally is not removed.

This chapter addresses both beach-focused and

ocean-focused studies considering vessel-source debris and landbased debris. New international and

national disposal restrictions have increased interest

in using ocean-focused studies to detect changes in

vessel-source debris on beaches. Therefore, additional attention is given to the use of beach surveys to

monitor vessel-source debris. This will be done by

presenting two case studies using beach surveys to

detect changes in vessel-source debris. The first is a

program developed by Theodore Merrell and Scott

Johnson (NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service,

Auke Bay, Alaska) to study very large debris (i.e.,

trawl web net fragments). The second is the program

developed by the Tidy Britain Group in England to

study large debris (i.e., plastic containers). The developers of the two programs have published extensively

on their study designs and methods, and their results

have been used in this chapter for recommendations

and guidance. Information from these two programs

is summarized here because much of the written material is difficult to acquire (e.g., government

reports) and spans some 20 years. For people planning a survey, this information can aid in project

development, show how initial study designs are influenced by the debris types, and explain how

programs may change over time.

Objectives and Purpose _

There are two general objectives of on-land (beach)

surveys for marine debris:

1. To determine the types and amounts of debris on

beaches in a specified geographical area at a certain time. This objective is generally associated

with baseline studies and is beach-focused.

2. To determine how types and amounts (or both)

of debris on beaches change over time. This objective is associated with assessment studies

(usually trend assessment), and can consider vessel-source debris or specific landbased debris

such as sewage items and medical wastes (i.e.,

ocean-focused studies).

These two objectives require different field designs, as noted by the Assessment Working Group

(Ribic 1990). For the first objective, standard survey

sampling techniques can be applied (Gilbert 1987).

For the second objective, the Assessment Working

Group (Ribic 1990) recommended that selected

beaches be monitored over time. The selection of the

beaches for monitoring should be guided by statistical sampling techniques such as stratification and

randomness (Gilbert 1987). This is similar to a timeseries approach used in water quality monitoring

(Lettenmaier 1978).

Population of Interest _

For baseline, beach-focused studies, the population

of interest is all or some subset of debris on all the

beaches in a defined geographic area at a particular

37
38 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

time. Debris can be landbased or vessel-source. Restrictions to the population of interest are generally

due to access problems (e.g., private beaches, remote

areas). Consideration of how debris types or amounts

may be different on the restricted beaches compared

to the unrestricted beaches is necessary to decide if

problems will occur. For trend assessment, ocean-focused studies, the population of interest is the

amount of marine debris in an unspecified area of

the adjoining water mass that is swept onto beaches

after a certain time interval. Vessel-source or specific

landbased debris on beaches is being used as an indicator of the oceanic debris condition. The degree to

which beach debris reflects marine debris conditions

in the open water is not commonly evaluated. For

both types of studies, beach dynamics, such as deposition rates and current influences, need to be

understood.

Historical Information _

Baseline Studies

Because baseline studies focus on beaches, information on the numbers and types of beaches in the

population of interest is necessary. Other variables

such as distance to urban centers, coastal dumps and

landfills, recreational centers (e.g., campgrounds),

and other debris sources would be useful to identify

possible stratification variables to be used in study

design and to help in interpreting the data. Previous

records of types of debris may be useful in determining whether the majority of debris is landbased or

vessel-source.

Trend Assessment Studies

Many studies have commented on factors that restrict

the choice of beaches when the objective is trend

assessment. The debris of interest may be either vessel-source debris or landbased debris (specifically

sewage-related items or medical waste).

To use beach surveys as indicators of oceanic conditions, indicator beaches must meet the following

conditions:

1. have known oceanic influences (e.g., currents

running past or converging in the area) or be

open to the marine environment (e.g., not sheltered by a breakwater, island, or land

promontory). Oceanic influences may be documented from recent hydrographic studies, such

as surface drift experiments;

2. collect vessel-source debris (due to physical characteristics of the beach, such as substrate type

and slope); and

3. be remote from populated areas (urban sources

of pollution, recreation areas) and estuarine areas (e.g., no known or limited landbased sources

of debris), unless methods are available for

clearly identifying each source of debris.

Information on oceanic current patterns and vessel traffic information (Requirement 1) can be used

to identify beaches that are more likely than others to

collect vessel-source debris. Information on currents

is often used after a study has been done to interpret

the results.

If fulfilling the third requirement is impossible,

some a priori decision must be made about differentiating between vessel-source and landbased debris.

For example, O'Hara (1989) used indicator items

such as galley wastes, fishing/boating gear, and other

characteristic operational wastes for vessel-source debris information. The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO 1989) decided that metal and glass

debris are probably landbased because, given their

weight, they likely would sink soon after being discharged from ships. However, on the shores of the

North Sea, it was clear that metal and glass did wash

ashore from ships (Dixon and Dixon 1981). Furthermore, metal and glass containers were found to be

prominent components of ships' garbage (Horsman

1982). Any approaches and assumptions made to distinguish landbased and vessel-source debris should

be described explicitly.

The conditions for using beaches to indicate

landbased marine debris are the same as the first two

conditions for vessel-source debris indicator beaches.

Oceanic influences will be important to predict

which areas of the coast may be vulnerable to

landbased debris (e.g., landbased debris coming

from harbors, river mouths, or offshore dumping areas). This information would be directly relevant as a

stratifying variable for the survey design. The potential beaches to be used for landbased marine debris

do not have the remoteness condition necessary for

vessel-source debris indicator beaches (Condition 3).

Since landbased debris is generated by humans in

populated areas, the potential beaches should not be

isolated from areas of known human influence, such

as urban sources (e.g., sewage and industrial outfalls,

harbors) or estuaries. The potential indicator

beaches must collect landbased debris, so variables
affecting the choice of beaches would be the same

for both types of surveys.

Variables to consider when doing beach surveys are

the physical characteristics of the beach (slope, substrate, composition, uniformity), prevailing weather

factors (onshore winds, frequency of storms), beach

accessibility (private, public; roads and parking

nearby), and composition of debris on beach

(landbased and vessel-source categories). The physical characteristics and accessibility of beaches

influence the number of potential beaches that can

be used for sampling. For example, beaches with low

or very steep gradients, or beaches consisting of boulders, should not be candidates for sampling.

Low-gradient beaches are especially unsuitable because storm winds and surf scatter debris inland,

where it becomes hidden in vegetation. Boulder as

well as bedrock beaches also are unsuitable: debris

between boulders is difficult to see; bedrock beaches

are often too steep for walking and do not accumu~

late debris. In the United States, preferred beaches

for marine debris surveys have moderate-to-steep

slopes, have sand or gravel substrate, and are exposed to the open ocean. In addition, beaches

should not be cleaned during annual "beach cleanups" (unless the beach cleanup matches the sampling

frequency of the planned study).

Physical characteristics of beaches affect debris

turnover time (i.e., the rate of disappearance of debris from the beach), which is important for

determining sampling frequency, especially whe'n

measuring standing stock. For frequent sampling,

weather factors influence the timing of sampling

(e.g., sampling should not be done during periods of

offshore winds or during storms). Beach accessibility

is important because private beaches usually have restricted access; beaches in remote areas, as in Alaska,

may be prohibitively expensive to reach regularly. Debris composition will affect what is measured

(standing stock or accumulation rate) as well as what

the sampling unit should be (e.g., the entire beach

or transects). Sampling multiple high tide lines over

a reasonably narrow beach profile is ideal for getting

a good sample of the debris composition in a sampling unit.

Field Measurement _

Two basic variables can be measured: accumulation

rate and standing stock. A choice must be made between the two because both cannot be measured on

the same sampling unit.

CHAFI'ER 4: Beach Surveysfor Small fQ Large Debris Items 39

Accumulation rate is the amount of debris that

washes and stays ashore on the sampling unit over a

certain time period. In order to measure this, the

sampling unit must be cleared of all debris at the

start of the sampling time period. This variable is

actually the accumulation rate of visible materials.

Many items become buried on beaches soon after

deposition, particularly the heavier items. In an ideal

situation, observations should be made daily in order

to produce the most accurate data.

Standing stock is the amount of material on the

sampling unit at a given point in time. In general, the

sampling unit is not cleared of debris (this is discussed further under Field Sampling Designs).

In some surveys, the variable that was measured

was unclear (FAO 1989). This becomes an important

consideration because of the increased popularity of

beach cleanups (CEE 1987b, 1988; O'Hara and

Debenham 1989; O'Hara and Younger 1990).

Beaches with a cleanup history will only be suitable

for measuring accumulation rate since the last

cleanup.

For small debris, standing stock usually is measured because of the difficulty involved in removing

such items from the sampling unit. Accumulation

rates are more easily measured for larger debris. Accumulation rate is the preferred measurement

variable, particularly for trend assessment studies, because it will be more sensitive to changing oceanic

conditions (see Golik [1982] for discussion in relation

to tar balls) .

Choices must be made concerning what particular

debris items to study. In some cases, focusing on a

particular debris type will be as informative as enumerating all debris types. This is particularly

important for ocean-focused studies where studying a

known vessel-source or landbased debris type is important. Fishing gear such as trawl web (e.g., Merrell

1985) and plastic containers (e.g., Dixon and Cooke

1977) have been successfully used in ocean-focused,

vessel-source debris studies. The advantage of studying plastic containers is that they can be aged by

codes molded into the plastic body. Also, in some

cases, origin can be identified by codes on the container. Information on manufacturing dates and

country of origin can help in assessing changing accumulation rates.

Material and Personnel

Following is a list of suggested basic equipment for

an on-land (beach) survey.
40 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

remote sites

A budget of $500-1,000 should cover the basic

equipment.

At least two trained people should partiCipate in

each survey; one to process debris and the other to

record data. The alternative is to u,e one person to

process debris and record the data into a tape recorder. In Alaska, $25,000 per year is the total budget

for beach surveys run by the National Marine Fisheries Service Auke Bay Laboratory (S. Johnson, NMFS

Auke Bay Laboratory, AK, pers. commun. April

1991). That budget allows two people to carry out a

total of 10 surveys on two or three islands in southeast Alaska.

The major expenses of landbased surveys will be

transportation to remote sites and personnel expenses (including salary, lodging, and meals). The

use of volunteers to collect data will reduce person-

• Metric measurement

tapes

• Metric ruler

• Stakes, flagging tape,

PVC (polyvinyl chloride)

pipe

• Topographical map

• Tags and paint for

marking very

large debris

• Waterproof data forms

and clipboard

• Random number table or

calculator with random

number generator

• Knife/scissors

• Heavy work gloves

• Small and large

garbage bags

• Scales:

Spring scales of three

sizes are adequate

• Jars with labels

• Camera and film

• Prismatic compass

To measure length of

beach surveyed and

measure very large

debris too big to lift. A

IOO-m tape is usually

adequate

For measuring mesh

sizes

To mark ends of the

survey area, to mark

transects

To mark survey area

or photographs

(or both)

For accumulation rate

objects: marking pens

for medium and large

debris

To choose random

transects; for standing

stock

To collect specimens

or debris, if feasible

To weigh debris:

0-300 g, 0-2 kg, 0-20 kg

To sample small debris

To photograph study

area; photograph

entangled organisms

To fix locations in

nel costs, but more supervision and training will be

necessary to ensure quality of collected data. Beach

surveys are considerably less costly than open-water

sighting surveys.

Data Collection

Suggested information to collect includes the

following:

1. Date

2. Time (start and end)

3. Location

4. Weather conditions

5. List of debris items by type and number (see Appendix Figures A-D [this chapter])

6. Volume or approximate weight of large objects

7. Containers-geographical origins, bottlemaker

imprints

8. Beach conditions (slope, substrate, etc.)

The specific data to collect will depend on the objectives of the beach survey. Most studies list all

debris items and then, during the data analysis phase,

put the debris items into function or material-type

categories or both. Some studies focusing on indicator items or particular problems (e.g., entanglement)

may list the debris categories before the data are collected. Some general categories used by researchers

were listed in Table 2 (Chapter 1). Few researchers

had defined landbased and vessel-source debris categories a priori.

Examples of forms used to collect data are in Appendix Figures, A-D (this chapter). Because of the

differences in survey objectives, no generic form can

be suggested for all studies. Figure 7 contains a suggested template that can be adapted for specific

objectives. As noted in Chapter 1, we recommend the

approach used by the Center for Marine Conservation whereby subcategories describing function/

manufactured use are grouped under a set of material-type categories.

Pilot Studies _

Many of the factors listed in the third guideline (Historical Information) are often not known before a

study starts. But if the study is long-term, this information is necessary to determine a successful design.

Some information, such as location of dumping sites,

may be available from governmental agencies or universities, but other information may not. Pilot studies

will be important if nothing is known about the

oceanographic influences to the beaches as well as
Sampling Unit Width Both are important for Weather:

transects:

Location (lat/long): This is important for beaches not Tide:

permanently marked.

Figure 7

Suggested template for beach survey forms.

End

Start

Date: Year/Month/Date

Time:

Dimensions (length/width)

plastic and glass bottles. Pilot studies will be necessary to develop techniques to differentiate between

vessel-source and landbased debris for specific geographical areas, particularly if plastic containers are

the debris type of interest (Dixon and Cooke 1977).

CHAPTER 4: Beach Surveysfor Small to Large Debris Items 41

Weight

Length is important for beaches. Beginning and

ending points should be

well-marked with flagging

and stakes.

Number

Slope

Substrate

e.g.. a beach or transect.

Length

This can either be a

list like that of the

Center for Marine

Conservation (1991)

and Cole et al.

(1990) or just general categories

like those of FAO

(1989). [See forms

in Appendix 4 ]

Beach Condition:

Item

Comments:

Observers:

Sampling Unit

beach characteristics. For example, Johnson (1989)

marked trawl net fragments to investigate seasonal

turnover rates on Alaska beaches. As another example, the Tidy Britain Group measured turnover

rate (shore retention rate) of containers by marking
42 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Quality Assurance Program _

Information concerning quality assurance program

plans for beach surveys is scarce. For studies in which

data are collected by volunteers, a training session to

guarantee the quality of the data is imperative. Common problems with data collected by volunteers are

an overrepresentation of plastic and -an underestimation of vessel-source debris (T. Dixon, unpubl. data).

Merrell's (1985) detailed beach survey is the closest

thing to instructions for a quality assurance program

plan that has been published to date.

Generally, the following details should be included

in a quality assurance program plan for on-land surveys: objective of study; choice of population of

interest and any restrictions; choice of debris items to

be studied; details of the sampling design; definition

of the sampling unit; sample size calculations; how

sampling units are chosen; how sampling units are

marked (if permanent units); how surveys are carried

out in detail; how data are recorded, stored, and

checked for errors; and how analyses are performed.

Field Sampling Designs

Beach surveys have been developed featuring many

different objectives and field sampling designs. Key

features of selected studies are listed in Table 7. Few

surveys have been designed for trend assessmen t

(Merrell 1985, FAO 1989, Cole et al. 1990). The field

designs for three trend assessment studies are presen ted in Table 8.

Differences in field sampling designs are attributable to differences in objectives and the types of

debris common to the areas. Merrell (1985) emphaTable 7

Key features of selected beach surveys for marine debris.

Sampling

Reference

Vauk and

Schrey (1987)

Willoughby

(1986)

Cole et al.

(1990); Manski

et al. (1991)

Merrell (1985)

Henderson et

al. (1987);

Henderson

(1988)

Manville II

(1990)

Purpose

(I) Characterize debris

on beach; (2) Use as

an indication of

problems at sea

Characterize litter on

islands

(1) Characterize debris

on beaches; (2) monitor

at-sea debris

Monitor for entangling

debris

Characterize fishing net

washed ashore on

beaches

Characterize plastic

debris

Variable

Accumulation

rate

Standing

stock

Standing

stock in some

areas; accumulation rate

in others

Standing

stock

Not stated

Standing

stock

Unit

60-m length

of beach

(high tide

line)

50 m of

high tide

line

3-5 sections

at 100-1000

m of42

beaches in

8 parks

11 beaches

(I km each)

surveyed

All beaches

on six atolls

25 beaches

Interval

Every

3 days

Once

3-4

times a

year

Annually

Regularly

patrolled

Once

Notes

Sandy beach;

area not used for

recreation; wind

direction monitored.

Systematic sampling

of entire high

tide line of

represen tative islands

in archipelago:

50-250 m between transects.

Variable substrate;

recreational use;

differen t debris

types recorded

Beaches remote

from populated

areas; sand and

boulder/cobble

substrate, moderate

to steep slopes

Surveys opportunistic,

beaches randomly

chosen; outer Aleutian

Islands surveyed
CHAPTER 4: Beach Surveysfor Small to Large Debris Items 43

Table 7 (continued)

Sampling

Reference Purpose Variable Unit Interval Notes

Duronslet et al. Document types and Standing 3-4 transects Monthly Part of a study

(1991) amoun ts of man-made stock in 3.3 m wide in dealing with strandings

debris some areas; 6 zones of sea turtles; some

accumulation transects randomly

rate in others chosen; other, fixed;

length was variable,

depending on

first storm line and

tide stage

FAO (1989) Pilot monitoring Standing 1-6 beaches Monthly All transects run

program for marine- stock in 4 of in 5 coun- in 40f5 from low water line

based litter 5 countries; tries; 2-11 countries; to back end of

accumulation transects per weekly/ beach; substrate

rate in 1 of 5 beach; 1- to biweekly variable; varying

countries 100-m wide in 1 of 5 recreational use;

transects countries choice of beaches

restricted by funding

and availability of

labs to carry out

monitoring

Lindstedt and Characterize debris Standing 6 beaches; Quarterly 4 beaches had

Holmes (1989) on beaches stock 3 established high recreational

transects; 50 use; 2 had low use

m in length,

10-77 m in

width

Gregory et al. Characterize debris Not stated All accessible Not

(1984) on beaches beaches and stated

low rocky

shores

searched

Golik and 1. Evaluate the quan- Standing 6 beaches; Monthly Counted all litter

Gertner (1990) tity of coastal litter, stock 5-8 random greater than 2 em;

2. determine the relation- transects; beaches differ in

ship between beach each transect morphology, substrate,

morphology or use 5 mwide, and use

and litter, 3. identify length from

litter as landbased or water line to

sea-based back of beach

(start of

vegetation)

Center for Characterize debris on Accumulation Beaches Yearly Volunteer program,

Environmen tal beaches rate along Texas (some had return of data cards

Education shore additional is voluntary

(1988) cleanups)

Cundell (1973) Determine whether Accumulation 1 beach Once Beach selected

debris on beaches is rate of due to location at

marine-based or plastics en trance of bay and

landbased its northerly aspect
44 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Table 7 (continued)

Sampling

Reference Purpose Variable Unit Interval Notes

Dixon and Monitor discarded Accumulation 3 sectors Periods Variable beach

Cooke (1977) plastic con tainers in rate (1.6 km ea.) of on- types, high frethe marine environment of shoreline shore quency of onshore

with N/S winds winds, lack of

orientation human disturbance

during winter months,

in close proximity to

Straits of Dover

Slip and Burton Identity types and ori- Standing En tire coast- Once First survey-litter

(1990) gins of litter on beaches stock line (94 km) of removed, wooden

Macquarie objects not included

Island owing to presence

of old shipwrecks and

past sealing activities

Caulton and Monitor maritime litter Standing 300 m length Systematic; Surveyed just after

Mocogni (1987) stock of beach weekly high tide; heavy

divided in to for 6 recreational use

three 100 m months

areas; 5

parallel-strip

transects, 1 m

wide at5 m

intervals for

each area

Wong etal. Baseline measurements Not stated Selected Annual

(1976) of pollution in marine stretches of

environment beach to

collect plastic

Scott Determine whether Standing 2 areas 100 yds Used inaccessible

(1972,1975) plastic debris was land- stock (1-100 yds, once; 50 stretches of rocky

based or marine-based 1-50 yds) yds twice shore

(3 years

apart)

Wilber (1987) Monitor amount of Standing 30 cm X Not

plastic in marine stock 30 cm stated

environment quadrats

Gregory (1977, Monitor amount of Standing I-m-wide Not

1978, a and b, plastic pellets on stock transects stated

1983) beaches along high

tide line

Shiber Monitor amount of Standing Hand Not

(1979, 1982) plastic pellets on stock collections stated

beaches on multiple

beaches

sized very large debris, especially trawl web, which

would be difficult to subsample in transects. FAG

(1989), however, was interested in medium and large

debris; thus, subsampling was used. Because the Tidy

Britain Group (see Case Studies, this chapter) was interested in plastic containers (large debris), sub- sampling was used along with surveys of the high tide

line for plastic containers. Differences in the designs

are numerous; Merrell (1985) emphasized the actual

field work, FAG (1989) gave more guidance as to sta-
CHAPTER 4: Beach Surveysfor Small to Large Debris Items 45

Table 8

Outline of three field surveys for trend assessment ofsmall to large beach debris items.

Baseline surveys with the objective of estimating

the amount of total debris on the beaches of a geographical area at a particular time pose a classical

sampling problem. With this objective, a new set of

beaches to sample that fit the conditions listed previously should be randomly chosen each time a survey

is made. The sample size estimation (i.e., number of

beaches to survey) is based on equations taking into

accoun t spatial correlation (correlation between

beaches). More complicated approaches are available

that take into account time and space correlations

(Gilbert 1987).

North Sea

(Tidy Britain Group Case Study)

Recommended log form.

Within the area of the population of interest, a minimum

of 40 sampling units (beaches) chosen in the following

way:

Each item listed.

• Divide the area of the population of interest into at

least 8 subareas that contain beaches with the required

characteristics; the 8 subareas should be distributed

throughout the area of the population of interest.

• Within each subarea, identify all potential beaches

from maps. Delete beaches that are inaccessible and that

have major sources of obviously land-generated debris

(camping, bathing areas).

• Randomly select 5 beaches from all the potential

beaches.

Study site chosen according to following characteristics:

• Typical examples of open coastal locations or relation

to semi-enclosed or oceanic water masses.

• Presence ofsandy beaches with shallow slope, welldefined backshore zone, and accumulated debris.

• Surface currents that run toward or parallel to the

study site.

• Situated in close proximity to major shipping routes

or fishing grounds or both.

Standing stock (g/m2). Per transect: Tabulate and weigh

all materials <15 kg, excluding timber or driftwood. Age

and note geographical origin and original contents of

all containers. Note the distribution of containers along

the transect line.

Per beach: Identify and photograph permanent features.

Three transects of 5-m randomly chosen. Length of

transect: low water line to high water marks plus 30-m into

the foredunes of the backshore zone when present. Walk

I km parallel to strandline, tabulate all containers, and

collect represen tative specimens.

Sampling frequency: Between October and April during

or after spells of persistent onshore winds (>96 h) with

velocities >8 m/s.

At least 2 beaches that differ in

morphology, sedimentology,

and type of use. Beaches should

not be regularly cleaned.

Nine categories used.

Mediterranean

Sea (FAO 1989)

Recommended log form.

Per beach: At least 4 transects

of 5-m width; each transect

randomly chosen. Length of

transect: low water line to back

end of the beach.

Standing stock (# or weight/

meter). Collect and weigh all

visible persistent litter greater

than 1-2 em.

Sampling frequency: at least

monthly.

Alaska

(Merrell 1985)

Each item is listed.

1 km of beach surveyed from water's

edge to seaward limit of terrestrial

vegetation at the upper limit of normal

high tides. Beach permanently marked

and photographed.

Recommended log form.

Standing stock (#/km).

Count all items greater than 5 mm in

size; tabulate and estimate weights of

partially buried net fragments.

Total number of beaches to survey not

indicated; each beach should be as far

as possible from urban areas; each beach

should have at least 1 km of similar

substrate and slope. Beaches should

have moderate-to-steep slope, sand or

gravel substrate, and be exposed to the

open ocean. Beaches should have

accumulated debris present.

Sampling frequency not

stated.

tistical details, and the Tidy Britain Group gave extreme detail in choosing beaches. The studies of

Merrell (1985) and the Tidy Britain Group are discussed further in the Case Studies portion of this

chapter.

The framework proposed by Ribic and Johnson

(1990) for developing beach survey sampling designs

is recommended with some modifications to address

baseline and trend assessment studies (Table 9). This

suggested framework can be used for any type of marine debris. Design differences are due to variable

study objectives.
46 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Table 9

Framework detailing alternative sampling design for beach surveys.

Study design

component

Objective

Variable

Sampling unit

Field design

Baseline

Estimate the amount of debris on the beaches of a

specified geographical area during a specified time.

Standing stock (mean #/km)

Beach

Stratified random sampling of beaches:

• Beaches: Appropriate beach topography and

morphology, no access restrictions.

• Stratify on amount of debris on the beaches (low,

medium, high)

• Number of beaches dependent on variability

of debris on beaches, specified precision of estimate,

correlation between beaches.

• Cost ofsurvey built in to some sample size equations.

Trend assessment

Estimate the trend in the amount of marinebased debris on beaches of a specified area

during a specified time period as an indicator

of oceanic trends.

Accumulation rate (#, weight/time interval) or

standing stock (#/km)

Beach

Random choice of indicator beaches:

To ensure geographic representation, follow a

"stratified" approach (Dixon and Dixon 1981;

Ribic 1991.)

• Indicator beaches: accumulators of large

amounts of marine-based debris, no access

restrictions, appropriate beach topography and

morphology.

• Number of beaches and sampling interval

depend on detection ofspecified change over

time periods using specified model, also

influenced by resource allocation.

With subsampling

of beach

FAO (1989):

• At least 4 randomly

placed transects per

beach.

• Each transect 5-m in

width, length is from

water's edge to mean

high tide.

Alternative:

Gregory (1978a): Sample

high tide line; transects:

3-m width, 25-m length

Without

sUbsampling

of beach

Merrell (1985):

• Count all debris on entire

beach from water's edge to

mean high tide line.

Tidy Britain Group Case

Study:

• Count all debris on entire

beach from water's edge to

3Q-m into vegetation.

With

subsampling

of beach

Golik (1982):

Systematically placed

transects: 100-m in

length, from water's

edge to mean high tide

line, cleaned of all

debris.

Without

subsampling

of beach

Clean entire beach

Measure variable of choice (e.g., counts, weights)

Estimate mean, variance, and confidence intervals

for standing stock

Generalize to specific geographical area for

specified time frame

Resurvey at established time periods; clean

each time; count and weight chosen

marine-based debris, age containers

Look at changes over time

Generalize to oceanic conditions

Common survey sampling techniques like stratification (Gilbert 1987) can be used to obtain more

precise debris estimates. For example, beaches that

have the characteristics defined earlier in this chapter (Historical Information) could be classified as

having low, medium, or high amounts of debris. The

number of sampling units to survey from each of

these categories could be based on the proportion of

beaches falling into each of the categories. A discussion of the usefulness of stratification can be found
in Gilbert (1987). In addition, differences in beach

lengths can be accounted for using probability proportional to length of the beach in the choice of

survey units.

With trend assessment, individual beaches are

monitored over time. Sample frequency per beach

will be high, particularly if a time series approach is

taken (Ribic 1991). The effects of environmental

variables (such as wind, tide, etc.) can be controlled

through selection of candidate beaches and sampling

period. The actual beaches that would be followed

over time would be chosen randomly from the group

of candidate beaches. Accumulation rate is the more

important variable of interest, though, of course,

standing stock can be measured. For medium to very

large debris surveys, all debris items can be counted

or, alternatively, the survey may focus on certain indicator items. If vessel-source debris is of interest, care

must be taken to determine any landbased fraction of

such debris. An important difference between sampling large debris and small debris is the use of

·subsampling; typically, there is too much small and

medium debris to count or collect in any reasonable

amount of time.

Analytical Procedures _

Caution must be used in comparing sites if standardized field techniques are not used. Debris

accumulation rate and standing stock measurements

are not comparable; that is, if one study measures the

accumulation rate and another measures standing

stock, then the two sites cannot be compared. If plastic containers are used as indicators of vessel-source

debris, analysis of container ages may directly measure accumulation rate in the marine environment,

avoiding the problems of comparing indirect beachbased measures.

To compare accumulation rates between different

studies, the sampling frequency must be the same.

For example, if one study measures accumulation

rate for 3 months and another for 6 months, the results are not comparable. In order to compare the

sites, the rates have to be put on the same time scale

(e.g., the amount of debris per month). This makes

the assumption that the rate of accumulation within

the sampling interval is uniform in all the studies

(this assumption may not be justified).

In measuring both the accumulation rate and

standing stock, it is inappropriate to add together the

amounts of debris found at a site during several sampling efforts at short intervals to determine total

amount of debris over a longer time interval. As an

example, the sum of all debris found during each of

CHAPTER 4: Beach Surveysfor Small to Large Debris Items 47

four quarterly surveys will not equal the amount

found during one annual survey. This is because the

amount of debris found on the beach at anyone time

is the result of the dynamic process of beach deposition, burial, and loss (e.g., a piece of debris washed

up on the beach in April mayor may not be on the

beach in September).

For baseline studies, confidence intervals can be

used for comparisons between areas and years. Data

are commonly summarized with pie charts and histograms of debris types. For studies where sampling

units are randomly chosen, hypotheses can be tested

with a variety of nonparametric and parametric tests.

Properly planned trend assessment studies can be

analyzed in a time-series framework. Lettenmaier

(1978) suggested that monthly samples taken for 5

years will give a minimum sample size for time-series

analysis. All the assumptions behind this approach

will have to be checked (Brockwell and Davis 1989).

An alternative to time-series analysis is the nonparametric analysis for trend (Hirsch et al. 1982; Gilbert

1987). However, for a short time series (on the order

of 5 years), these techniques may have low power

(Hirsch and Slack 1984). Another alternative is to

use a within-subjects analysis of variance model

(Keppel 1982) where beaches are the "subjects" and

the time period when measurements were taken are

the "treatments." Various adjustments can be made

for violations of the typical analysis of variance assumptions (Keppel 1982). This is basically the

alternative considered by Ribic and Johnson (1990)

although they use a randomized block in time design

where beaches were blocks. The simplest approacha "before and after" comparison of specific

beaches-is also possible (see Case Study: The Tidy

Britain Group, this chapter). Because of the potential

complications in the analysis of trend assessment

data, a statistician should be involved from the onset

of planning the study through the analysis stage.

Case Studies _

Two case studies are presented to demonstrate the

different ways the marine debris problem can be

studied. In both cases, concerns about aesthetics initiated the work. The field survey designs were

influenced by geographical variables and the major

debris items found in areas. Both studies standardized sampling protocols early on and continued to

follow basic protocols throughout the studies. Finally,

both studies have changed and refined their objectives as more was learned about their particular

problems and as control measures (e.g., MARPOL

Annex V) were implemented.
48 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Table 10

Outline and chronology for Alaska beach surveys.

1972-1974

1974-1980s

1982

/

Early 1980s

1984

1985

1986

Mid-1980s

1989

Surveys started at Arnchitka Island during course of an unrelated project

Predominant debris was related to fishing industry

Standardized methodology established (outlined in Table 8)

Standing stock primary variable

Decrease in fishing effort offAlaska

Original Arnchitka Island beaches resurveyed to assess prediction of decrease in amount of debris on Arnchitka

Island

Focus on debris related to fishing industry

Standing stock primary variable

Entanglement in fishing gear identified as possible causes of northern fur seal decline

Seven islands in southeastern Alaska surveyed for entangling debris; prediction is that there is less fishing in

southeastern Alaska and, therefore, there should be less debris

Standing stock primary variable

Sampling design emphasizes entangling debris

Two islands of original seven in southeastern Alaska the focus

Aleutian Islands (including Arnchitka Island) surveyed

Standing stock still primary variable

Design modified to assess accumulation rate

Beach dynamics of plastic debris investigated

Focus on two islands in southeastern Alaska

Standing stock and accumulation rate being measured on different beaches

Beach dynamics-emphasis on trawl web

Education efforts begun to discourage disposal of fishing nets in North Pacific

Two islands in southeastern Alaska the focus

First island: surveyed twice, accumulation rate measured

Second island: surveyed annually, standing stock measured

Emphasis on trawl web dynamics on second island to assess impact of MARPOL Annex V

MARPOL Annex Venters into force 31 December 1988

Alaska Beach Surveys

Alaska beach surveys of marine debris are being done

by researchers within the National Marine Fisheries

Service. The chronology of the Alaska beach survey

studies is presented in Table 10. The following information was derived from Merrell (1980, 1984, 1985),

Merrell and Johnson (1987), Johnson (1988; 1989;

1990, a and b), and Johnson and Merrell (1988).

The initial work on beach surveys in 1972 was

started by Theodore Merrell (NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Auke Bay, AK) on Amchitka

Island in the western Aleutian Islands of Alaska. This

work was started as an opportunistic study during

Merrell's stay on the island for another project. The

choice was fortuitous because Amchitka Island is situated in the North Pacific Ocean (one side facing the

Gulf of Alaska, the other the Bering Sea) away from

major sources of landbased debris. Most debris

proved to be vessel-source (e.g., fishing nets, floats,

cargo-related ropes, strapping bands). In the absence

of a standard survey methodology, Merrell developed

an approach that is still appropriate to this day (see

Table 8 and Merrell 1985). The sampling unit was an

entire beach because the beaches on Amchitka Island

are relatively small and discrete (i.e., bounded by

rocky headlands.

In 1984, a temporary shift was made to sample

southeast Alaska beaches. Merrell (1985) did not provide the rationale for selecting those beaches;

however, they were generally known to collect debris.

Because many outer coast beaches in southeast

Alaska are steep bedrock and not suitable for debris

surveys, the selected southeast Alaska survey beaches
were among the few beaches with suitable substrate,

slope, and access characteristics (S. Johnson, National

Marine Fisheries Service, Auke Bay Laboratory, AK,

pers. commun. April 1991). In 1985, the emphasis

shifted to entanglement debris (fishing nets and strapping bands) as concern increased about the impact of

entanglement of marine animals in such debris. In

1985, focus on trawl web started and, in 1989, the researchers shifted their studies to use trawl web as an

indicator of the impact of MARPOL Annex V.

Thus, there has been a change in measurement

variables as the survey has evolved. Standing stock

(both type and and amount of debris) was of initial

interest. Beach dynamics of debris (primarily trawl

web) and measurements of accumulation rates have

become increasingly important. Studies of the movement and fate of trawl web and other plastics have

been conducted by mark-recapture studies. Tagging

or removal of trawl web from the beaches is now routine, as is the removal of rope, gillnets, and strapping

(S. Johnson, National Marine Fisheries Service, Auke

Bay Laboratory, AK, pers. commun. April 1991). In

terms of sizes of debris, the surveys emphasized large

and very large debris.

During this series of surveys, objectives have been

refined and the sampling design, field measurements, and data analyses altered accordingly. Despite

refinements, however, the basic field methodology

has remained unchanged. The data collection by one

person and his training of other surveyors reduced

the problems of inter-observer variability and helped

insure continuity between studies. This will make

comparisons between previous surveys valid. The interest in a specific type of debris-entangling

debris-is also a strong point because of the way this

interest was used to focus the research.

The Tidy Britain Group

The following study is based on Dixon and Cooke

(1977), Dixon and Dixon (1980, 1981a; 1983), and

Dixon and Hawksley (1980).

The Tidy Britain Group is the United Kingdom's

national litter abatement agency. It has a broad membership including national and local governmental

agencies, industry, commerce, and voluntary organizations. The Group functions primarily as an advisory

body, but also offers a wide range of practical programs dealing with litter problems on land, or more

recently, at sea.

The Group's approach to deal with litter problems

involves tackling two main causes: first, the attitudes

and behavior of people towards littering and the environment; and second, the correct and incorrect

CHAPTER 4: Beach Surveysfor Small to Large Debris Items 49

ways of handling debris and waste. This has been

achieved by a series of educational and public involvement programs directed toward the entire

community. A chronology of the beach survey studies

undertaken by the Tidy Britain Group is presented in

Table 11.

The Tidy Britain Group supports a Marine Litter

Research Program as an integral part of its approach

towards litter abatement. The Program was established in 1973 in response to numerous complaints

about increasing quantities of all types of litter on the

United Kingdom's beaches, frequent reports of injuries sustained by bathers owing to encounters with

broken glass and sharp pieces of metal, and general

dissatisfaction with declining aesthetic conditions of

primary bathing beaches.

The Development of Beach Survey Techniques and

Analytical Methods for the Surveillance of Marine

Litter-In the early 1970s, few references in the literature described systematic studies of marine litter.

Consequently, the research program first sought to

develop suitable beach survey techniques and analytical methods. Preliminary observations at several

locations around the United Kingdom coastline suggested that glass, paperboard, metal, and plastic

containers were the main components of marine litter. Plastic containers were therefore selected as the

debris type of primary interest. The initial studies

had the following objectives:

• Determine the main kinds of containers and their

relative abundance;

• identify the range of geographical origins;

• quantify container retention rates on different

beach types; and

• assess the persistence of plastic debris in the marine environment.

The initial observations were undertaken on a 4.8-

km stretch of Dover Strait coastline. This was chosen

as a long-term reference area because it included a

variety of beach types, had a relatively high frequency

of onshore winds during all seasons, was in close

proximity to major shipping lanes, and recreational

boats operated offshore throughout the year. In addition, there was evidence of litter originating from

landbased sources, including beach users, sewage

outfalls, rivers, and a nearby coastal landfill site.

Use of Containers as Indicators-The observations in

the reference area suggested that plastic containers

were the most common type of debris. They were

deposited along high tide lines at a rate up to 80 km-I

day-l, and were therefore suitable indicators, identifying the major sources and subsequent movements of
50 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Table 11

Chronology for Tidy Britain Group surveys.

1973-1977

1978-1980

1980 on

1988

Marine Litter Research Programme established in response to apparent increasing quantities of litter on the United

Kingdom's beaches

Purpose-Generate systematic data showing qualitatively and quantitatively the nature and scope of the problem

Primary components of marine debris identified as containers

Single sampling unit chosen as a long-term reference area; it consists of varying beach types, high frequency of

onshore winds during all seasons, known high density ofshipping operating offshore; also accumulates landbased

debris

Containers collected, contents, ages, and manufacturers identified

Retention rates assessed, beach dynamic studies undertaken with mark-recapture experiments

Population of interest redefined to a large area; to assess large-scale trends, survey design further developed and

reassessed to identifY limitations (outlined in Table 8)

MARPOL Annex V becoming an issue

Field sampling design changed to include the following:

• single subsample per site

• increased container samples

• distribution of containers on beach omitted

New program to assess impact ofMARPOL Annex V

Two studies developed:

1. Source-specific beach debris surveys to detect changes in at-sea waste disposal due to MARPOL Annex V; arranged

surveys as "before" and "after" entry into force of the Annex at same sampling units and times of year:

- Emphasis on plastic containers (geographical origin, ages, original contents)

- 185 sampling units (not all fulfill previous substrate requirements}

2. Assessments of the provision and use of reception facilities in ports and marinas for disposal ofships' garbage

ashore.

MARPOL Annex Venters into force on 31 December

vessel-source debris. Consequently, technical support

networks previously established with packaging and

product manufacturers, especially plastic bottle makers, were considerably extended on a global basis. A

detailed database was compiled for the most frequently observed containers, incorporating data on

packaging histories. The data base continues to be

updated regularly.

Beach Type and Litter Assessments-Given the

marked relationship between beach form and retention rates of containers found in the reference area,

sandy beaches were identified for more detailed observations. Further mark-recapture studies were

undertaken, providing a clear understanding of the

processes by which materials were removed from the

beaches and later deposited elsewhere. Containers

and other types of plastic litter were often recovered

from the backshore zone, where they had been deposited by the wind. Glass and metal items, in contrast, were more likely to become buried "in situ," in

close proximity to high tide lines, and later exposed

by wave action. All types of litter were found mixed

with algal materials. Longshore movements by wind,

currents, and wave action were also evident, often

causing litter to be washed from beaches, transported

seawards, and deposited elsewhere.

optimum Sampling Period and Frequency--An optimum sampling period was apparent for assessing

litter originating from sources other than beach users. This period was during or immediately after

spells of persistent onshore winds (>96 h), with velocities >8 m s-J, between October and April. Tidal

stage did not affect this optimum sampling period.

Daily inspections of foreshore high tide lines and

backshore zones enabled collection of accurate data

on the types and quantities of deposited litter.
More extensive searches beyond the transect

boundaries were employed to collect samples of conCHAPTER 4: Beach Surveysjor Small to Large Debris Items 51

• the presence of sandy beaches, with shallowly inclined beach face gradien ts and well-defined

backshore zones, on which marine debris was

known to accumulate in the short term

• exposure to surface currents running towards or

parallel with the coastline, and the relatively high

frequencies of onshore winds, favoring the stranding of debris

• close proximity to major shipping routes or fishing grounds or both

Careful consideration was given to the spatial distribution of the sampling units throughout the

population of interest. However, from a practical

viewpoint, the duration of each survey was largely determined by the level of funding available.

Therefore, it was decided that a minimum of 40 sampling units should be examined with a team of

between two and four observers. A method of multistage stratified random sampling was employed in

selecting the sampling units. The selection process is

detailed in Table 8.

On arrival at each sampling unit, permanent features or fixed points were identified on or near the

shoreline and photographed. The locations of

transect lines were fixed using two-digit random

numbers (from tables) that represented a linear distance down the beach from the fixed points.

Each survey on a sampling unit lasted between 14

and 18 days following spells of onshore winds; two

were completed in March or April, and the remainder in July or August. In the case of the latter surveys,

sites where substantial numbers of beach users were

likely to congregate were avoided.

At each sampling unit, sUbsampling was done using

three 5-m strip transects established at right angles to

the shore using measuring tapes and markers. Each

transect extended from the water line across the foreshore to include all visible high tide marks, and an

additional distance of up to 30 m into the foredunes

of the backshore zone, when present.

The following data were recorded within each

transect.

In contrast, assessments during the remainder of

the year, particularly during or at the end of the bathing season, generally identified a small residual

proportion of litter deposited earlier. This was composed largely of plastics mixed with the more recent

discards of beach users.

Large-Scale Beach Litter Surveys on the Shores of the

English Channel, North Sea, and North Atlantic

Ocean-Between August 1978 and July 1980, new

sampling units were chosen from the beaches of

Cherbourg Peninsula, France, west Jutland in Denmark, Portugal, and the Western Isles of Scotland. A

total of 170 sampling units were examined.

The goals of this expanded program of beach litter

surveys were as follows:

• Assess large-scale trends in the composition, geographical origin, distribution, and persistence of

marine debris in the coastal and oceanic waters of

western Europe; and

• develop a standardized method for assessing vessel-source debris from beach surveys on the

shores of different water masses, and subsequently

identify any limitations.

The survey program sought to produce data of sufficien t accuracy drawn from a sufficiently large

geographical area such that results could alert national authorities and intergovernmental organizations of the consequences to uncontrolled solid

waste discharges into the marine environment.

Accordingly, specific survey objectives were as follows:

• Identify the major sources and relative distributions of marine debris in the semi-enclosed and

open ocean waters of western Europe;

• assess the persistence of plastics and other types

of solid wastes in these waters;

• document the environmental impacts of marine

debris;

• adapt the methodologies and techniques developed in earlier pilot studies for use on a larger

scale;

• determine the most appropriate statistical methods for analyzing data from large-scale beach

debris surveys; and

• improve as possible the survey design including

spatial sampling considerations.

To achieve these objectives, the sampling units

were selected on the basis of the following biophysical and anthropogenic factors.

• their relative geographical positions on the shores

of semi-enclosed and oceanic water masses, as

typical examples of open coastal locations

•

•

•

•

total wet weights of the main fabrication materials

and the density of all litter in each foreshore

transect, excluding items >15 kg, and timber or

driftwood

frequency, fabrication materials, geographical origins, ages, and original contents of containers

the distribution of containers within the transects

the distribution of plastic fragments by their presence or absence in 1 m2 plots along the transect

line
52 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Irish Sea

North Sea

English Channel

Northeast Atlantic Ocean 66 sampling units in

the Western Isles of

Scotland and Cornwall

22 sampling units in

Cardigan Bay

65 sampling units in

northeast Scotland,

Cleveland, Yorkshire,

Humberside, and

"Norfolk

32 sampling units on

the Isle of Wight

The timing and duration of surveys at each sampling unit used the procedures described earlier. The

baseline surveys (i.e., before MARPOL Annex V entered into force) were undertaken between 1980 and

1987, usually in March or April, following spells of

onshore winds and before the commencement of

regular summer beach cleaning operations.

The survey methods were the same as those described previously, with the following exceptions:

• Total debris weight and that of each of the main

items were derived from a single transect at each

site, and

• observations relating to the distributions of containers and other types of debris across beach

faces were omitted.

These minor adjustments were made to increase the

number of sampling units that could be surveyed and

to ensure the optimum use of resources.

Data on debris weight within transects will be analyzed by comparisons of means (before and after

MARPOL Annex V entered into force), with particular reference to plastic debris categories, and comparisons of spatial distributions and associated relative weight differences will be evaluated based on

data collected before and after MARPOL Annex V

entered into force. The major parameters used 10

comparing the container data are listed below.

The debris in the respective water masses around

the coastline of the United Kingdom was the population of interest. One-hundred eighty-five sampling

units were chosen using a multi-stage stratified random sampling scheme.

• Generate statistics to detect any major reductions

in the overall quantities or types of litter, notably

plastics;

• detect changes in at-sea disposal practices from a

detailed study of the container proportion of

beach litter; and

• relate the data obtained in the first two objectives

to trends in the availability on use of port reception facilities.

At the planning stage of this new program, it was

recognized that at least two complementary data sets

were necessary to fulfill the revised objectives: First,

data documenting the availability and use of reception facilities in ports and marinas for the disposal

ashore of shipboard generated wastes, notably plastics; second, beach survey data of specific debris types

organized in an appropriate time series to document

improved waste disposal practices at sea.

In order for a port and marina reception facilities

study (which is presently underway) to be supported,

a national beach litter survey commenced in 1980.

The aim was to identify any significant long-term

changes in the quantities and types of beach litter

originating from ships' discharges on varying geographical scales.

Determining the most suitable spatial sampling design was necessary at the outset for comparative

purposes. A number of different approaches were

considered; for example, "before" and "after" surveys

organized separately using different sampling units

(where "before" and "after" refers to the date

MARPOL Annex V went into effect).

An alternative approach that was chosen was the

use of paired observations, "before" and "after," on

the same sampling units. This sampling design would

control for influences from variables such as beach

type or topography, hydrographic features of water

masses, and different amenity values of sampling

units. Consequently, the following specific survey objectives were identified on regional and national

geographical scales:

The Use of Large-scale Litter Surveys in Programs

Designed to Assess the Effectiveness of MARPOL Annex V-In anticipation of the expected entry into

force of MARPOL Annex V by the mid-1980s, the

program strategy was revised. In order of priority, the

new program strategy had the following objectives.

• assist in implementing the Annex by raising public awareness of the need to protect the marine

environment;

• evaluate the effectiveness of the various regulatory and other measures designed to reduce

garbage discharge at sea;

• determine the types and amounts of marine litter

entering the marine environment from sources

other than ships' discharges.

tainers for dating. For this purpose, at each sampling

unit two to four observers walked along the foreshore

parallel to high tide lines for a distance of up to 1

km. All containers were examined and samples collected. The procedure was then repeated in the

foredunes of the backshore zone of each site.
• original contents classifications, the common

products in the baseline surveys being typical of

those used on ships

• geographical origins, with particular reference to

changes in the relative proportions of samples

that are foreign in origin

• age classes, with an emphasis on changes in distributions following the entry into force of

MARPOL Annex V

• varying combinations of the above, analyzed regionally and nationally

The remaining non-container debris observed in

transects will be compared on the basis of frequencies of occurrence for each type, notably fishing gear

debris. The "after" surveys (surveys made after

MARPOL Annex V entered into force) will be completed over the next 5 years, and the results

published periodically on a survey-by-survey basis

followed by a national review. Reports will be submitted to the appropriate regulatory authorities, governmental departments, and the shipping

industry.

No major difficulties have been encountered to

date in the organization of surveys or subsequent

analysis of data. However, in numerous instances,

ideal beaches have not been located and, therefore,

other beaches, primarily sand backed by shingle,

cobbles, rocks, and cliffs, have been used. In identifying long-term trends, allowances have been made for

changes in the patterns and densities of offshore

shipping operations.

Following the broad guidelines contained in the

revised beach survey program, the future work program will focus primarily upon compliance

monitoring in connection with MARPOL 73/78 Annexes III and V, and assessing inputs of debris into

the marine environment from sources other than

ships. As noted above, an examination of the efficiency and availability of port reception facilities for

ships' garbage is already underway, and findings

from the beach surveys will be considered with the

port reception facility surveys to facilitate an overall appraisal of the effectiveness of the Annex V

regulations.

In spring 1991, an extensive study of packaged dangerous and hazardous goods recovered on beaches

commenced. The analysis of the data will generate

statistics concerning the efficacy of ship reporting

systems for lost cargoes, changes in substance identification markings used on packages, and other

aspects of the regulations contained in MARPOL Annex III and the recently revised IMDG (International

Maritime Dangerous goods) Code. Provision will also

be made within the survey objectives to compile information on medical wastes and other potentially

CHAPTER 4: Beach Surveysfor Small to Large Debris Items 53

hazardous materials, which are being found in increasing quantities on beaches.

Over the next 3 years, inputs of debris to the marine environment from nonship sources will be

examined in more detail. Particular attention will be

given to landbased debris, such as sewage items, and

the development of suitable methodologies for measuring riverine discharges of debris to the marine

environment. In addition, joint studies with local authorities and other interested groups will examine

the most effective means of preventing beach users

from discarding debris.

Summary _

• There are two types of objectives commonly encountered in beach surveys: 1) baseline (studies

documenting types and amount of debris on

beaches); and 2) trend assessment (long-term

studies to detect changes in overall amounts of

specific debris types).

• Different survey designs are necessary to address

the two objectives. Remote sites are ideal for trend

assessment of vessel-source debris because the

source of debris is readily identified as vesselsource.

• Baseline studies with multi-source debris must be

able to discriminate between landbased and vessel-source debris. Beaches meeting basic criteria

should be randomly chosen each time a survey is

made if the focus is on the beach rather than the

beach as an indicator of oceanic conditions.

• Trends in oceanic conditions are best assessed by

using indicator beaches of interest and measuring

the same beaches over time. The indicator

beaches are randomly chosen from a list of

beaches meeting basic criteria. Indicator items,

such as plastic containers or sewage items, can be

used to assess accumulation rates and long-term

trends in occurrence.

• Well-conceived field sampling designs are imperative in all cases. Studies with multiple and conflicting objectives, if not recognized as such, can

cause design problems.

• The cost of a beach survey for trend assessment is

generally low compared to directly assessing marine debris conditions in the open water (at-sea

programs).

• The two case studies demonstrate different ways

of studying the marine debris problem with beach

surveys. The case studies illustrate how geography

and differences in major marine debris types

greatly influenced the study designs.

• A statistician should be consulted at the onset of

survey planning and be involved through the

completion of the study.
Surveyors Location CD Beach No. OJ Length (m) I I I I I

12 34 5678

Transect OJ Substrate 0 Slope D Month o:::J Day [I] Year IT] Cleared 0

910 11. 12 1314 1516 1718 19

\l1

"'"

z

;3

l")

[

!.

l

0

"I

...

Z

Q-

?'

~. ..,

t::l

..,

:1.

til

"'t:l

= <

p..

••

l w

:88: 89:

90 91

:92:93:

94 95

r;;Q

[IJ

W

78 79

W

[IJ

W

84 85

Page -_ of - __

------------ 71 72 73 >lm'

styrofoam

Plastic

NMFS-Plastic Debris Survey Form

--------

Open straps

Fishing Gear I p_a_c_k_a_g_i_n_g _

Trawl web o::t Bottles

Rope Caps/lids 22 23 24 65 6 67

_________1 I I J Bags

252627 -- ___________1 I I I <1m'

____________ 28~

00 CUps

[TI

3536

a:J

37 38 a:J Bowls/utensils/straws 94

Small pails 41 4

c=r=J Six-pack yokes 43 44 r=J Beverage crates

45 c=r=J Styrofoam food

4647 containers

oc=J Bulk liquid containers _

Styrofoam packaging

500 Misc.

cD ------ ----------- 53 54

g;J

o

IT]

6061

Closed straps

Gillnet floats

otbd oil containers

Buoy bags

Crab pot floats

Trawl floats

Crab bait containers

other floats

Multifilament gillnet

Troll bait containers

Monofilament gillnet

Monofilament fishing line _

Fish baskets

Loops (Rope, etc.)

S-Gal oil containers

Troll plugs

Chemical ampUles

Misc.

AppendiX Figure A

Data form for beach surveys of debris. National Marine Fisheries Service-plastic debris survey form.
Footwear

Gloves

Smoking accessories

Toys

Combs/brushes/eyeglasses __

Beach whistles

Medical

Misc.

B5 Visqueen/Plastic sheets

<1m' ell:' >lm'

~0211J Shotgun wads

Pipe/tubing

CD Fragments/Pellets

l00~ Gaskets

Brushes/brooms D Garbage can/lids

cfJ Foam/insulation

"111112

Misc.

g;}

\lS

1

11J

~17:11J

1~"'1:8

~3111J IT]

133134

Appendix Figure A (continued)

CODES

Location Transect em)

1 Yakutat

2 Middleton Is.

3 Amchitka Is.

4 Kruzof Is.

5 Kuiu Is.

6 Noyes Is.

7 Suemez Is.

8 Admiralty Is.

9 Lincoln Is.

10 Ralston Is.

11 Kayak Is.

12

13

14

15

Beach No.

1-99 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

0-100

1-200

2-300

3-400

4-500

5-600

6-700

7-800

8-900

9-1000

1000-1100

1100-1200

1200-1300

Substrate

1 Sand

2 Gravel

3 Boulder

4 Combination

5

1 Low

2 Moderate

3 Steep

4

5

Cleared

1 Yes

2 No

3 Trawl web

4 !:l

5 So

6 ir

!:l

::::

S'

'"

a·

r

CJl

CJl
III

Q')

7

6I+u++:++=H+~++::t=4~+l+t-++++++-l+I+++--H-H___t1r---t-Htt__H--nH_tttt---H-nH-ttttii~ttt:ttt====

7I----1--U++++--I-I-I---l--+-W-I-I-t-H-t-l-+-++++++f+H--t-++t+r+-H-ttii-Hr--t-t-tttti-H--t-t--rtttil1itttttl--==

81-t---H--+--l---l-U~W--J-+--t--1H--++-H+H-+-+--HH-++-H+H--HH-H-ti-r-H-ti-HH-ttTH-ttiiittiiiHiiitt---­

o

91-t---H--+--l---l-U~W--J-+--t--1H--++-H+H-+-+--H+++-H+H--HH-H-ti-r-H-ti-HH-ttTM-ttiiitliiIHi1itt---=

'W-t-+-W-+-+-W-I-l-t-W++~+I_+_+++++++-l+I+++_H-H___t1r---t-Htt__HTH_tttt---H--nH-ttttti_r_H-t111--­ 2W--W----U-+-W--WW--W----J.-jW--l-l-+-++I-++++1f++++J+H-H+H--+++t-+H-tlH-H-j-H-ttilittilittiiiH----

3U-W-+-I~W--WW--W----J.-jW--l-l-+-++I-++++1f++++J+H-H+H--+++t-+H~H-H-j-H-ttilittilittiiiH---­

4W-U~_l_W-W_l_W----W---+-H--I-+--t--1-++-++t+t++-++H--H--tlH-+t+!+H-H-t-tt-H-t-t-tiiTr-ttiltitill::t==== 5

8I+U++:++=H+~++::+=J:+=I+-l+t-++++++-l+I+++--H-HTH-Htt__H--rH_tttt---H--nH-ttttiiIH-t1ti---=-__-----= 9I-t-f-I--W-+-+-W-I-UW++~+I++++++++-l+I+++_H-H~r---t-Hti---HTH-tttitiilllttttij=t:::tttt!j==== °1----l---I-+++=P--I-I-I---l--+-W-I-I-HH-t-l-+-++++++f+H--t-++t--tlH-H-ttii-Hr-t-H-ttii-Hr-t-t--rtttil1ittttl1--- '1----I--W--W--W--I-I-I---l--+-W-I-I+H-t-l-+-++++++f+H--t-++t----f-JH-H-ttii-HH-t-tttii-Hr-t-t--rtttil1:::t:tttl::u====

~p:+~=Hr:++=l=++i=+--J.---I-l---t-~-HH--H+-H+-H+-H++I+H+H+ti+H+H+HTHTHTHTti-tt1j:-t1====

4W--W_l_I-l--+--+-+-+-+--+-H--I-I-l-t+-I-If++++1+H+H--H+H-H++t+H-H-t-H-H-j-tt-j-H-tiitlilittilti--- 5l-+-W--W-I-W--WW--W----J.-jW--l-l-+-++I-++++1f++++J+H-H+t-++t++-tH-HH-tt-j-M-tt-HittiiiHiiiH---- 6

-

o

==g.

t:l

g.

::I.

ell

[JJ

[

z

;3

l"l

[

!.

l

.,

o

...

Remarks

Gunshot

Six-pack yoke

oil

Ropel tishin9 1 ine Unkno~

I:na

GI

":>

'"

u

o

z

...." ii' -!!

'V

page __ of

1 SeB. bird

2 Seal/sea lion 3 porpoise

4 Whale

5 Fish

6 Crustacean

1 Fish' seabirds S Fish i seabirds' marine llIi!lIllIl\als

9 Sea birds i marine mammals

10 Sea otter

11 Bird bones

12 Mammal bones

13 Fur seal

14

15

Anim,1s "Dunaled/dead observed}

.-t.~1:51

8 '"

tiAll<>n

1 Trawl

:z Sponqex

3 Buoy bag

4 Solid fOi!llD

5

•

1 Japan

2 U.S.

3 Russia

4 Poland

5 Korea

6 Tai\lan

7 Canada

•

•

Rope (Pia -rom) Flopt,_Typo

1/8" .. 3

1/.· .. 6 3/8 11 .. 10

1/2 11 • 13

5/8" '" 16

3/4" '" 19

1 11 .. 25

1-1/4" - 32

1-1/2t•• 36

1_3/4 11 .. 44

2"' • 56

Yes

No

Trawl web only

Tra'Wl 'Web, qillnet.

closed strap, rope

2-300

3-400

4-500

5-600

6-100

1-200

8-900

9-1000

).JOO-llOO

110U-1200

1200-1300

1 Actual

2 Estimated

Tronsect em)

1 - 0-100 :2 .. 1-200

3

,

5

•

7

•

•

10 •

11 - 12 '..

13 -

14

15

111i111llTllllllllllllllllllr"lllllljllllpltllllllllllllllHjlllll1l1Illllllllllllllllltlllllllj'lllllllljllIIIUlllltIlIIIlTllll11lll11lll"tll"lIWIIIIIIlI"lljllllIIIITIIlI"IIIIIIII"llrlllt

omm 1 2. 3 4 5/;7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Trawl web

Konoti1allent 9111net

Multifilament qUlnet cargo net

1 Clear

2 Green

3 Black

4 Blue

5 Yellow

6 Red

1 OrangQ

e White

9 Bro....n

10 Mixed

11

12

Netting Typg

Rope

.., ...

I

U

! 0 ........ u

Dl", GI .. " .. 0 S o ;~ c .... GI ... C .. 0 .. <;0(>,

0: C .. .. t.I ..... .y ~. '" Eo C

Tviated/knotted

Braided/knotted

Tvlsted/knotl8BS

Braided/knotless

Double strand

Nylon

Assorted mesh sizes

and colors

Buried

Snarled on 10'1s

Loose

Buried and snarled.

Construction

912012112212

6:-

GIl \f ~'<I Eo ",01,

4"

Surveyors Location m Beach No. m Length (m) c:r::::oJ Month CD. Day CD Year CD Cleared IT] IT] 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 910 1112 1314 1516 Dead animals"'"T""17_1B _

Ir----------N--e""t""t--:i-n-g----- i I~.. ..1 .... - _I 1:"~"",_ I .··.h...., .........,.",~ I

... 'iii... _ .~c_ c~f/l u ;::

'§. GI GI m 0 ...

Q; 1:: ID .s- '6 .~ s.,'&~ tJl Il t.I £: 24Z52.~U~~31~33~~b5Tb~~-~r34~-9~~oTI4-1~~T4~~-~r44~~~~u+~~4~9T~~01-51~~~ij=n~~~~5=5~~3~5~~~58~15~+=~r6~II~n~~~+=3~6~~6~~~~~6~+~9~~~~-I~~4~-3rl~+R-t~6TR~~=n~f~~~~~ ••~~.~~~~9~

NMFS-PLASTIC MEASUREMENT FORM

l&laU2n

1 Yakutat

2 Middleton Is.

J Allchitka Is. 4 Kruzol ta. S Kuiu Is. 6 Noyes Is.

7 Suemez Is.

a Ad_iral ty Is.

9 Lincoln Is.

10 Ralston Is. 11 Kayak Is. 12

13

14

15

1-99

1 Yes

2 No

Appendix Figure B

Data form for beach surveys of debris. National Marine Fisheries Service-plastic measurement form.
CHAPTER 4: Beach Surveysfor Small to Large Debris Items 57

BEACH CLEANUP DATA CARD

Thank you for completing this data card. Answer the questions and return to your area coordinator or to the address at the

bottom of this card. This information will be used in the Center for Marine Conservation's National Marine Debris Data Base

and Report to help develop solutions to stopping marine debris.

__________________Affiliation

_________ Occupation

Name

Address ________ Phone ( ) _

City State Zip M __ F __ Age: _

Today's Date: Month: Day Year Name of Coordinator

Location of beach cleaned Nearest city _

How did you hear about the cleanup? _

SAFETY TIPS

1. Do not go near any large drums.

2. Be careful with sharp objects.

3. Wear gloves.

4. Stay out of the dune areas.

5. Watch out lOr snakes.

6. Don't lift: anything too heavy.

WE WANT YOU TO BE SAFE

Number of people w::lrking together on this data card Estimated distance of beach cleaned Number of bags filled _

SOURCES OF DEBRIS. Please list all items with Foreign labels (such as plastic bleach bottles from Mexico) or other markings that indicate the item's

origin (such as cruise line names, military identification or debris with names andlor address of shipping/freighting or fishing companies, or oiVgas

exploration activities).

SOURCE ITEM FOUND -, ~C- ~ippiN"l COrnp;;ro-l'1 plastic::. S1rJI'P;"'''I ba... d.. ..,

STRANDED ANDIOR ENTANGLED ANIMALS (Please describe type of animal and type of entangling debris. Be as specific as you can.)

What was the most peculiar item you collected' _

Comments

Thank you! PLEASE RETURN THIS CARD 10

YOUR AREA COORDINA1OR

OR MAIL IT 10:

Center ror Marine Conservation 1725 Desales Street. NW

Washington, DC 20036

A Membership Organization

formerly CeIIlu Ibr FnvironmcDlll1 Education, Est, 1972

Appendix Figure C

Data form for beach

surveys of debris.

Center for Marine

Conservation-beach

cleanup data card.

© 1990 Cenler Ibr Marine Conservation

Unil:ed Sales

Environmenlal Protection

Aoeocv

Center for &EPA

Marine

Conservation
TOTAl

122. I

58 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

ITEMS COLLECTED 'rou may find it helpful to work with a buddy as you clean the beach. one of IQU picking up trash and the other taking notes. An eaSoJ wiJ'f

to keep track of the items you find is by making tick marks. The box is for total items: see sample below.

ex.....,..: I~ 1I1L..'U>- I TOTAl egg cartons _~_I_"TTTT---,-,-_'-fll_'--'- cups -HH--ff/t---#If- -Hff /1

PLASTIC

"' ...-

-...... "' ...-

-...... bags:

c::::::::J fishing nets c:::::=J food bags/wfappers hard hats c:::::=J trash c::::::::J I~ stid<s c:::::=J salt c::::::::J pieces c:::::=J Olher bags c::::::::J pipe thread protector c:::::=J bottles: rope c:::::=J

beverage. soda c::::::::J sheeti,,€,

bleach. cJeaner c::::::::J than 2 feet c:::::=J milk/water gal. jugs. c::::::::J 2 feet or shaner c:::::=J

oil, lube c::::::::J 6-pack holder.; c:::::=J other bottles c::::::::J strapping bands c:::::=J buckets c::::::::J straws c:::::=J caps. IKJs c::::::::J syringes c:::::=J

cigarette filters c::::::::J tampon applicators c:::::=J

cigarette lighters c::::::::J toys c:::::=J cups. utensils c::::::::J vegetable sacks c:::::=J

diapers c::::::::J "'Mite procecoon" rings c:::::=J

lishingine c::::::::J Olher pIaslic {specify]

fishing lures. /loats c::::::::J c:::::=J

STVROFOAM~ (or Olher pIaslic foam)

buoys c::::::::J packaging material c:::::=J cups c::::::::J pieces c:::::=J egg cartons c::::::::J pIales c:::::=J fast food conIainers [.=:J Olher Sl)rofoarne (specly)

meat trays c::::::::J c:::::=J

FOUJ ALONG THIS UNf!

GLASS

boltlesIjaI,;: nucrescent light tulles [.=:J

beverage bottles c::::::::J light bulbs [.=:J

food jars c::::::::J pieces c:::::=J Olher botllesljars c::::::::J other glass (specify) c:::::=J

RUBBER

balloons c::::::::J ores c:::::=J condoms c::::::::J Olher I\Jbtlef (specify)

gioves [.=:J c:::::=J

METAL bottle caps c::::::::J 55 gallon drums:

cans: rusty c:::::=J aerosol c::::::::J new c:::::=J

beverage c::::::::J pieces c:::::=J food c::::::::J pull tabs c:::::=J Olher c::::::::J wire c:::::=J crab/fish traps c::::::::J other metal (specify) c:::::=J

PAPER

bags c::::::::J newspapers/magazines c::::::::J cardboard c::::::::J pieces c:::::=J cartons [.=:J plates c:::::=J cups c::::::::J Olher paper (specify) r:=J

WOOD

(leave dnltwood on the beach)

crabllobsl:er rraps c::::::::J pallelS c:::::=J Ctales c::::::::J Olher wood (specify)

lumber pieces c::::::::J c:::::=J

CLOTH

clothinglp;eees [:=:J

Remember to tum the card over and lin out your name and address and to record sources and entangled wildnre!

Appendix Figure C

(continued)
Name Address

CllAFTER 4: Beach Surveysfor Small to Large Debris Items 59

The Tidy Britain Group: Marine Litter Research Programme

SURVEY FORM

LOCATION OF BEACH (please

state county and nearest town)

DATE OF SURVEY

TYPE OF BEACH (sand, shingle or mud, etc)

IS THIS PART OF A REGULAR

SURVEY?

YES/NO (please underline your answer)

Office Use Only

PART 1: Containers Found Please only record containers. 11' any, from within your survey ares.

A. TYPE OF CONTAINER, B. ORIGINAL CONTENTS C. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN D. OTHER MARKINGS SUCH AS

MATERIAL & COLOUR OR NAME OF PRODUCT IMPRINTS AND DATE

CODES, AND COMMENTS

Example

WlMU f( ~~ ...-:rv~. 'f+ CASU1.L.L.OID 417:2. '<le. . 'BI~. J

PART 2 Other Litter

(Excluding Containers)

TiCk. each time you find an item. If very common,

write in "WIDESPREAD". Please add any general comments to the reverse of this sheet.

A. PAPER Office J. RAW SEWAGE Office Use Use Only Only

B. CARDBOARD K. FISHING NET

C. PLASTIC FRAGMENTS L. FISHING LINE

D. PLASTIC BAGS OR M. ROPE SHEETING

E. GLASS N. WIRE

F. METAL O. CLOTHING

G. WOOD P. PAPER OR

PLASTIC CUPS

H. OIL Q. CONFECTIONERY

WRAPPINGS

(inc. crisp packets)

1. SHOTGUN CARTRIDGES R. OTHER FINDS (please describe)

(a) Plastic case

(b) Paper case

Appendix Figure D

Data form for beach surveys of debis. The Tidy Britain Group-survey form.
60 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

When Was It Made?

These consist of a series of numbers and parallel vertical

lines. Each product sold in a supermarket will eventually hsve its o~ code. The rirst two numbers show the nationality of the 'number bank'. The next five numbers show the manu- racturer and the last five show the product.

00-09 USA + Canada 10 Norway I HOLMIAI DENMARK

CANADA

IN BELGIUM

A

P B

U

WHERE WAS

IT MADE?

C&J FRANCE

@ FRANCE

WF FRANCE

@ IRELAND

STAR IRELAND

UPLA PORTUGAL

<§) SOUTH

AFRICA

ffiJ BELGIUM

Dots and a number in a row are another

type or date code. The number at the end or beginning or the row represents the last digit or the year or production. For example, 1 • 1971,

and so on. The dots show the month

in the year when the container was made. One dot is removed ror each

month. so 12 dots is January, 9 dots

April, and so on. In the example, the date of production would be

November 1980.

Th1s 1s another type or clock code.

rrequently used outs1de the United

Kingdom. The last 2 dig1ts or the

yesr or product10n are round in the centre and an arrow points to a single number on the outside or the

circle, representing the month. In

this example, the container was made

in February 1918.

Plast1c bottles are dated in several

dirrerent ways. The most cOllllllOn 1s

known as a CLOCK COIlE. The year in

which the bottle was I18de 1s shown

by the number in the centre or the

c1rcle. O. 1980. 1 • 1981. 9 • 1919

and so on. The month or bottle

product10n 1s shown by the number or dots on the rad1ating lines. In th1s example. there are seven dots. the month or production wss the 1th month - July. The number

in the centre or the c1rcle is O.

sO the container was produced in

July 1980.

II 12 I

10 ./"2

9 78 3

8 4

7 6 5

BarCodes

CASCELLOID UNITED

KINGDOM

30-37 France 73 Sweden

,1111

40-43 West Germany 16 Switzerland

49 Japan 11 Australia

50 UK 80-83 Italy

54 Belgium 84 Spain

57 Denmark 89 Netherlands

Example: 64 Finland 90-91 Austria

50 00317 00201 3 c Paperboard carton. Longl1fe Milk. 1 pint. UK.

Please record all numbers on the survey ~or.m.

STOP PRESS!

Please keep a special watch for any pink plastic cylinders in your study area. Their shape and dimensions are shown

in the diagram. If you rind any. please record

the number round in your study area in Section R (other finds)

of part 2 (other litter).

inc:I ~'--_--'""'(. 3 inches 1

HAUSTRUP

PLASTIC

VANGUARDIA

JEYES

u

•

B

MONSANTO

DENMARK

SPAIN

UNITED

KINGDOM

UNITED

KINGDOM

UNITED

KINGDOM

USA

USA

Appendix Figure D (continued)
Chapter 5

Benthic Surveys

for Large Submerged Debris Items

General Description _

Benthic surveys for medium to very large debris

items involve counting, classifying, and, in some

cases, collecting items that have sunk to the sea floor.

Only small sections of the population of interest will

be surveyed, but results can be extrapolated to the

total area. Collection and disposal of debris will depend on the technique used for collection and the

size of the debris.

Three survey techniques are discussed in this

chapter.

1. trawl surveys

2. submersible surveys

3. diving surveys

Trawl surveys, which have been used most often for

assessing types and amounts of benthic marine debris

(Holmstrom 1975; Jewett 1976; Feder et al. 1978;

Berger and Armistead 1987; Bingel et al. 1987; FAa

1989; June 1990), are the main focus of this chapter.

Because of their high costs and limited availability,

remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) and manned

submersibles have been used only in a few studies on

benthic marine debris (Carr et al. 1985; High 1985).

Divers using scuba equipment have assessed the effects of "ghost fishing" by lost nets (Carr et al. 1985)

in the North Atlantic Ocean and benthic debris in

McMurdo Sound, Antarctica (Lenihan et al. 1990).

Note that all of these techniques are still in an experimental stage. Further, repeated and repeatable

studies are needed.

Objectives and Purpose _

Benthic surveys can be used to provide information

on the distribution and amount of debris on the

ocean floor for a specific area. The debris of interest

is usually large to very large and often of a particular

type (e.g., lost fishing nets). Few baseline surveys

have been done for benthic debris (FAa 1989, June

1990). Other studies noted marine debris found

while collecting other benthic samples (Holmstrom

1975; Jewett 1976; Feder et al. 1978; Bingel et al.

1987).

Population of Interest _

The population of interest is the amount of debris on

the bottom of a specific area of ocean at a specified

time. The population of interest can be as small as

the bottom of a bay or cove, or as large as an ocean

basin. Restrictions to the population of interest may

occur because of floor composition (i.e., substrate

and topography), depth, fauna, flora, and use patterns of the area (e.g., cargo shipping lanes, fishing

grounds, or recreational areas).

Restrictions to the population of interest may be a

result of the survey technique more than any other

reason. For example, if the survey technique must be

a trawl survey, then even if the population of interest

was benthic debris in the Great Barrier Reef of Australia, the population of interest would have to be

changed because trawl surveys are not possible in

that area.

Historical Information __--------

The factors that may effect the trawl survey technique are as follows:

• depth (e.g., this affects the amount of cable

needed for trawls)

• slope (e.g., a bottom with a steep slope cannot be

sampled by a trawl)

• substrate composition (e.g., areas with large rocks

and pinnacles can damage the trawl net)

• currents (e.g., cross-currents can cause fouling of

the trawl net)

• dump sites (e.g., areas for oceanic dumping by cities should be avoided)

• local fishing practices (e.g., areas with crab or lobster traps may pose a hazard to trawls)

For the other two survey techniques, bottom depth

and ocean currents will be the most important factors. In addition, visibility will be an important factor

(e.g., high plankton density will make underwater

navigation and debris counts impractical).

From Guideline 4 to Guideline 8 (see page 62) the

three survey techniques are quite different. The

manual will first look at the guidelines in relation to

61
62 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

trawl surveys, since trawls are most often used. Submersible surveys will be second, followed by diving

surveys.

Trawl Surveys _

Field Measurement

Trawl surveys usually seek to measure benthic debris

(number of items, density, or wet/dry weight per

trawl) .

Description-The ship slows to a "trawl speed" (this

varies with the type of boat, type of net and sea conditions), at which time the trawl is released from the

stern of the ship, either over a stern wheel or down a

ramp. The net is extended such that the footrope is

on the bottom. The footrope should be a "hard

bottom" type with very small bobbins or a metal bar.

Once the trawl net reaches the bottom, the time is

recorded. The ship maintains the trawl speed for the

duration of the trawl. Mter a prespecified time has

elapsed, the trawl net is retrieved and the time recorded (Fig. 8). From the length of time on the sea

bottom and average ship speed, the distance trawled

can be measured. Most trawling vessels have LORAN

Cor GPS navigation equipment, which will make distance an easy measurement.

The same trawling procedure should be repeated

at each predetermined sampling point. The speed

and time towed should be the same for all trawls.

Variables to ConsiderVessel Variability--Different ships will tow more effectively than others. This variability is due to the

ability of the ship and crew to identically reproduce

rows, stay on track, and handle variability (such as a

crab pot encountered in the middle of a tow).

Net Variability-The size of mesh is the most important net variable to consider. Tows cannot be compared unless the meshes are the same, owing to differential escapement of debris (unless all debris

below a certain size is not considered). Other netrelated variables are the sweep area and volume of

the net. Acoustic mensuration systems are available

that measure both horizontal and vertical net openings constantly during the tow, so differences

between nets used can be quantified. However,

changes in these variables may cause problems in

standardizing tows.

Footrope Variability--"Hard bottom" nets should be

used with orily the smallest bobbin size. Many bottom

trawl nets are designed to scare fish and do not "dig"

sufficiently (if at all) into the sea floor (due to large

bobbins) to "catch" many kinds of marine debris

(i.e., pipes, heavy cans, large plastic sheets).

Depth Variability--If minor increases in depth occur during a tow (e.g., 5-10 m on a 100-200 m depth

tow), the net may list off the bottom. Compensations

should be made so that the bottom is followed at all

times. As with net variability, acoustic and mechanical

devices are available that detect contact of the footrope with the bottom during the tow.

Stem trawling

..Q) ....

® Releasing independent Pice; cable

® Danlenoe moving of chute

([) Taking In body 01 trawl (diagonal lift)

® VertlC8llift

® Emptying codeOO

dfl!Ii ~.~

aBJ$ ..-,-

h"""i""i""ii,jj"H""';il'"'j"'"''liP.. nil''''il''''i~;;;II(thlliirilli'''''iqhljilNUiiW"'iii"~

® Trawl towing

® Heavlngin

CD Cable

® Otter board

@ Warp aOO lead to wlrch

@) Cable aOO lead

nliilili,'!",iiliIUrlilil

Figure 8

Method of heaving gear aboard a stern trawler (adapted from Garner 1967).
CHAPTER 5: Benthic Surveysfor Large Submerged Debris Items 63

Weather-Rough sea conditions can cause net entanglement, loss of debris from the net, or lift the net

off the sea floor.

Measurement Variability-The above factors all contribute to measurement variability. In addition, errors

in sorting large tows (especially when tows are done

in cooperation with fishery trawl surveys) can be a

problem when measuring debris.

Data Collection-Data collected with respect to categories of debris are similar to those in the previous

chapters (see Chapter 1, Categories of Marine Debris). Specifically, the following information should

be collected at each tow.

• date

• time tow started

• time tow stopped

• exact location (either latitude/longitude of each

trawl [e.g., 600 N by 175°W] or distance traveled

between each trawl (e.g., 5.2 mi from trawl 3»

• speed of ship during trawl

• weather conditions throughout trawl

• any holes in the net at the end of the trawl

• any trawl period during which the net is not dragging the bottom

Few data forms are available for benthic debris surveys (see Appendix Figures A-C (this chapter). Forms

for other trawl surveys may be adapted for debris

purposes. Appendix Figures A and B (this chapter)

comprises forms used by the National Marine Fisheries Service for demersal trawl surveys for bottom

fish. Figure 9 depicts a suggested data form for trawl

surveys.

Material and Personnel-The basic equipment

needed for trawl surveys is categorized by two

objectives:

• Sample collection

a bottom trawl net and all equipment needed for

the deployment of the net log forms for sample

collection

• Trawl analysis

large bags (~103 L) to pile and store debris

scales for weighing debris (0-100 kg)

protective gloves for handling samples

data sheets (sample analysis)

The greatest expense is the cost for the ship arid

the net. A large net designed for marine debris studies is about 4 m high and 12 m across and will cost

about $20,000-$30,000 (Net Systems, Inc., Bainbridge Island, WA). It may be possible to obtain nets

through an interagency loan (e.g., National Marine

Fisheries Service), with only the shipping and insurance fees to pay (which will depend on the location

of the trawl survey).

The cost of the ship will depend on the population

of interest and the size of the net. To charter a ship

about 30-m long to perform a bottom trawl survey in

the eastern Bering Sea will cost around $3,500-

$4,000/day, excluding fuel. Fuel costs will be about

$300-$350/day when trawling. While in transit, fuel

costs will be about $500-$600/day. A 30-day cruise

could therefore cost around $110,000, excluding net

and the personnel costs. The cost will increase dramatically if the ship is larger. The size of the vessel

needed will vary depending upon the following:

• the size of the net-the larger the net, the more

horsepower needed to pull the net;

• depth of the area to be trawled-the greater the

depth, the more cable needed to reach the b tt m.

The ratio of cable to depth is usually considered to

be 3:1, i.e., a trawl depth of 100 meters needs 300

meters of cable. A 30-m ship can only trawl to

about 200 m owing to the amount of cable it can

hold; and

• distance from shore-a large vessel, 60 m or better,

is needed for high-seas trawling.

The crew will handle the deploying and retrieving

of the net in most cases, but the sorting of debris

once on deck must be handled by the investigator or

assisting personnel. For assisting personnel, the cost

is similar to the National Marine Fisheries Service

marine mammal observer program: the salary will

run around $3,000/mo plus travel expenses (room

and board may be additional, if not included in the

price of the ship charter).

On the basis of the preceding information,

the typical price of an entire 30-day cruise, including

the cost of the net, may well be $150,000 or more.

Though the net can be reused, the cost for

continued trawling still will be quite high. Using a

vessel of opportunity can reduce costs to those associated with the personnel required for sorting the

debris, travel to and from the ship, and room and

board.

Quality Assurance Program

Because of the number of trawls likely to be performed, a quality assurance/quality control program

J;>lan is one of the most important aspects of the trawl

survey. For example, the National Marine Fisheries

Service has been performing trawl surveys in the

Eastern Bering Sea since 1973 and has a detailed
64 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Vessel Name

Date (Yr/Mo/Day) _

Gear Depth (in m)

Bottom Depth (in m)

Sea State (Beaufort)

Starting Location (lat/long) _

Ending Location (lat/long)

Loran Start _

Loran End

Time: Start Trawl (24-hr time)

Time: End Trawl (24-hr time)

Bottom Type (hard, rocky, mud, silt)

Area Use Type (commercial fishing, shipping lane, pleasure craft, etc.)

Net

Body _

Cod End ------ Liner ------

Net Type

Door Description (width, height in m) _

Mesh Size (mm stretched):

Wings _

Footrope:

Bobbin Size (in cm) _

Chain Size (in mm)

Bar Size (in meters)

Wireout (in meters)

Average Trawl Net Horizontal Opening (in meters)

Percent of Time with Bottom Contact

Figure 9

Suggested template for trawl survey forms.

document describing exactly how trawl surveys

should be performed.

As noted previously, surveys should use the same

trawling procedure at each station. A set procedure is

not only good 'on a day-to-day basis but on a year-toyear basis as well. For comparisons to be meaningful,

the trawls must be as similar as possible, and any differences must be noted. A set sampling procedure

cannot be done without a strict quality assurance program plan in effect.

The items listed below should be included in the

quality assurance plan.

• specific boundary of the population of interest

• all aspects of the net (e.g., door width, mesh size,

volume)

• specific points trawled (e.g., accurate location coordinates)

• categories used to sort debris

• data analysis details
CHAPTER 5: Benthic Surveysfor Large Submerged Debris Items 65

Percent Subsampled

Items Disposal Comments

(Categories) Number Weight (Probable Origin,

Material Composition)

Figure 9 (Continued)

• ship and accessory gear description

• cJew efficiency at handling trawl

• subsampling and sorting procedures

Field Sampling Designs

As with floating small debris, one cannot assume that

the materials will be randomly distributed throughout the population of interest. Certain large areas

will have virtually no debris while other areas will

have significant amounts, which is why the historical

information on the population of interest is particularly important.

If a study is meant to give a baseline assessment or

a year-to-year assessment of the type and amount of

benthic debris found in the population of interest,

then a regular systematic or random sample will give
66 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Mean CPUE= CPUE = _i=_I _

Note: The "fishing" power correction factor has not

been computed for any debris type, so in most cases

it will be assumed to be 1.0.

For an overall mean CPUE and its variance for the

population of interest of a specific strata:

N

L(CPUEi )

a good assessment of the amount. If, however, a study

is meant to assess changes in benthic debris over

space and time due to legislation, then one should

concentrate samples in areas where a change is most

likely to be detected.

In either case, multiple techniques for benthic marine debris assessment would increase the

information about the population of interest. For example, a study might use a trawl survey of an area

followed up by an ROV survey.

Analytical Procedures Variance CPUE = S2CPUE =

N

N __

L(CPUEi - CPUE)2 i= I

N (N-l)

where N = the number of hauls in the area.

2

Variance weight = S~t = (S2CPUE)' C

n _

L(Ak CPUEk) k= I

n

L(Ak2 S2CPUEk) k = 1

Overall CPUE =

c

A

Overall S2CPUE =

Total weight = wtT= 1(CPUE)

If using a stratified random sample, the overall

mean would be calculated as follows:

specified area of interest (e.g., eastern

Bering Sea), and

vulnerability; the fraction caught versus the fraction missed during a trawl

sweep.

Note: As with "fishing" power, vulnerability is assumed

to be 1.0 for most debris items.

where

To determine the total weight of debris in an area

or strata, perform the following calculations:

CPUEij =

Many standardized techniques for analyzing biological data can be obtained from systematic or stratified

trawl surveys or both (Doubleday and Rivard 1981).

These techniques may be adapted for analyzing

benthic debris survey data. One difference will be the

need to disregard factors correcting for "animal

movement." Otherwise, the statistical techniques will

be the same when assessing standing stock.

There are no "standard" techniques available to

perform analyses dealing with changing accumulation of debris. Research is being conducted on how

to evaluate this kind of data and the effects associated with it Uune 1990). The problem of clustering

samples and assessing changes over time must be

taken into account:

To assessing the amount of benthic debris in an

area of a random sample or a strata of a sample, the

estimate is made using standard fisheries trawl survey

procedures Uones 1990) in the following manner:

For each haul, catch per unit effort (CPUE) is

measured, usually the amount (either number or

weight of pieces) per area swept (usually in ha or

nmi2, e.g., 100 kg/ha). The area swept is the distance

trawled multiplied by net width. CPUE is calculated

from a trawl survey i for a debris type j as follows:

To find the total estimated weight of the area of a

stratified sample, the following is performed:

n

Total weigh t = wt T = L

i = 1

n

Overall S2wt = L S 2

wt . i = 1 I

where W'J

Di

PI

weight (or number) of debris type j on

trawl i (kg),

distance trawled on trawl i (km)

effective trawl width for trawl i (km),

and

relative "fishing" power correction factor (which is how well one ship's

efficiency at "catching" debris is compared to another ship's in the same

area) for trawl i in respect to debris

type j.

where n = number of strata, and

Ak = area of each strata.
Material and Personnel-Besides the submersible

and support vessel, the only materials necessary are

the data forms for tabulating the survey. The submersib.le and support vessel are usually very

expensIve. The cost of a submersible will depend a

great deal on the maximum working depth and

whether a manned or unmanned submersible IS

needed. A manned submersible with a maximum

working depth of 330 m and the necessary support

vessel will likely cost more than $7,000/day excluding

fuel. An ~OV with a maximum working depth of

2,000 m wIll run around $2,000/day in addition to

the support vessel at $10,000/day excluding fuel. For

very deep dives (e.g., 5,000 m) the price could be

over $10,000/day for the ROV and $10,000/day for

the support vessel. To have a manned submersible

capable of operating at depths over 2,000 m would

cost much more than the ROVs. All these previous

prices include the necessary crews but not necessarily

an observer. The prices also do not include the transportation of the submersible to the dive location

(shipping will vary greatly with the size of the submersible). Obviously, a submersible survey can be

very expensive, unless a submersible is already owned

~y the institution or can be borrowed through an

mteragency loan (e.g., NOAA's West Coast National

Underwater Research Centers).

• date

• time the bottom or predetermined depth is

reached

• time the ascent is started (i.e., end of the transect

or course)

• exact location (either latitude/longitude [e.g.,

600 N by 175°W] at each dive or distance between

each dive [5.2 miles N from last trawl])

• speed of submersible

• any changes of distance off bottom

• depth

• bottom topography and substrate type

• estimated range of visibility

• number, type, and size of debris observed

Noting any biological growth on the debris may

help to determine the age of the debris (Carr et al.

1985). Figure lOis a suggested data form for use with

a submersible survey.

CHAPTER 5: Benthic Surveysfor Large Submerged Debris Items 67

Data Collection-It may be difficult to categorize

benthic debris accurately. Broad categories will usually be used. When actual collection by use of

manipulators found on some submersibles is used,

categories can be more narrow. The following data

should be collected during each dive.

Field Measurement

Description-The submersible is deployed from a

mothership (the exact procedure depends on the

type of submersible). Upon reaching the bottom, or

~ore specifically, just above the bottom, the survey

w111 start. The submersible should follow a predetermined transect as closely as possible, although this is

often difficult to do (Caddy 1976). The debris is observed, counted, and classified, if possible, although

rarely collected with the submersible manipulators.

Debris may be observed directly from manned

submersibles or via a camera. Unmanned submersibles with camera systems are also available. As

with the trawl surveys, to calculate the area surveyed,

the starting and ending time of the transect are recorded and the speed is held as constant as possible.

If multiple transects are made to assess the population of interest, the procedures should be repeated as

consistently as possible during each transect.

Variables to ConsiderThe field measurements of importance are the number and, if possible, the type and size of the benthic

debris observed in a strip transect, or per dive.

Submersible Surveys _

Weather-Launching and retrieving of manned

submersibles and large ROVs require a low sea state.

State 3 is usually the upper limit for a safe launch

(Keller 1977).

Vessel Variability-Different submersibles will have

different areas of visibility and different degrees of

mobility. Visibility will depend on the submersible

lights, the size of the view port, and on the type of

camera lens. Mobility will depend on whether the

submersible is tethered or untethered, the type of

servo propellers used, and the size of the vehicle.

Characteristics of marine debris-The color, size,

s~ape, extent of encrustation, and degree of burial

wIll affect the sightability of the debris.

Turbidity-Very turbid waters will reduce visibility

to a few cm (Palmer 1977). At great depths (>1000

m), however, visibility will be fairly clear (about 60

m), which is due, in part, to the lack of life (Keller

1977) .

~easurer:'ent Variability-As with trawl surveys, the

:anables h~ted above will limit an investigator's abilIty to classIfy debris as to type or size, or even limit

~he abi!ity to detect debris. Errors in identifying what

IS debns and what is not will, however, depend greatly

on the training and experience of the observer.
68 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Observer Name _

Pilot(s) Name(s)

Support Vessel Name

Submersible Name

Date (Yr/Mo/Day) _

Substrate Composition (mud, rock, etc.)

Bottom Depth (in meters) _

Depth of Submersible (in m)

Starting Location (lat/long)

Ending Location (lat/long)

Submersible's Speed (km/hr)

Time of Descent (24-hr time) _

Time Observing Begins (24-hr time) _

Time Observing Ends (24-hr time) _

Time of Ascent (24-hr time)

Estimated Visibility at Bottom (in m)

Estimated Search Width (in m)

Time Object (if identifiable) Category Comments

Figure 10

Suggested data form for submersible surveys.

Quality Assurance Program

Quality assurance/quality control program plans go

beyond repeatability when dealing with submersibles.

Because of danger to personnel, safety is a prime

consideration. A good guide to safety in submersibleoriented research can be found in Pritzlaff (1979) .

Beyond safety, the points noted for the trawl

survey quality assurance program plan also apply

to submersible surveys. Some items to be included

in the quality assurance plan (not including safety,

see Pritzlaff [1979], and excluding the specific guidelines set for the submersible to be used) are as

follows:
CHAPTER 5: Benthic Surveysfor Large Submerged Debris Items 69

• specific boundary of the population of interest

• large physical features and substrata on the ocean

floor

• predetermined course for the submersible

• actual course followed by the submersible

• means of determining visibility

• categories used for describing (sorting) debris

• Details of data analysis

• observer and pilot experience

• specifics about the submersible:

-manned or unmanned

-tethered or untethered

-size of observation port

-type of camera(s) used (including lens)

-manufacturer name of vessel

-any specific modifications used

Field Sampling Designs

As stated earlier in Trawl Surveys (this chapter)

benthic debris is not likely to be randomly distributed throughout the population of interest.

Depending on the type of study being performed,

different sampling schemes should be used.

Submersibles are very expensive, and thus, dive time

must be used cost effectively. Limited search times

may bias results, so declustering techniques (as described by Isaaks and Srivastava 1989) may be

needed.

Transect methods will provide accurate data on debris for a small area and will be more appropriate

than the procedure in the following discussion on

accumulation studies. The transect method also can

be used to give a continuous description of debris

type and changes in composition throughout the

population of interest.

CPUE methods will yield an overall estimate of how

much debris is on the bottom but will yield little specific information on the composition of the benthic

debris over the population of interest. A stratified

sample would be best, using depth and area usage as

the stratification variables.

Analytical Procedures

Procedures for data analysis are similar to the procedures used for the trawl surveys. The difference is

that instead of strip width being the net width, it is

the estimated width of the field of vision. Also, instead of the CPUE being kg/ha, the CPUE will be the

amount of debris observed per area (e.g., 50.7 nets/

ha). This analytical procedure generally will be used

when performing many dives in a large area.

When using transects, procedures in sighting surveys for floating debris (Chapter 2) can be employed.

Strip transects will most likely be used. The reason

for using strip transects instead of a line transect is

twofold: first, determining distance underwater can

be difficult at best; and second, the width of view may

be a meter or less owing to the size of the observation port or the size of the lens on the camera. To

calculate the density of debris in an area, see Chapter

2, Analytical Procedures. Strip transects are designed

for smaller areas and fewer dives compared to the

CPUE method.

Diving Surveys _

Field Measurement

The field measurement for diving surveys is the

amount (number of items or weight) of benthic debris per quadrat or transect. This method is

particularly suitable for assessing medium to very

large debris or when the population of interest is

small (e.g., <1 ha) or both.

Description-Two methods used for assessing populations of benthic organisms are the quadrat method

and the transect method (Dart and Rainbow 1976;

Hiscock 1987, 1989). While these techniques have not

been tested for assessing marine debris, they merit

discussion because neither trawl nor submersible surveys can be used in very shallow waters «5 m).

OptionsQJladrat-A map of the chosen area has a uniform

grid placed over it, often generated by computer. A

sample of the squares (blocks) of the grid or the vertices of the grid are randomly selected, using a

random number table or a random number generator on a computer or calculator. A team of at least

two experienced divers with scuba or snorkeling

equipment sample at the selected sites. A sample grid

is marked on the bottom, using stakes and cord or a

large, fabricated metal or PVC pipe square. The area

within the square then is searched meticulously for

all debris. Small pieces are collected for sorting and

weighing on shore or on the deck of the boat. The

larger pieces are recorded with an underwater pad

and grease pencil or photographed with an underwater camera or both. Their type and estimated size

should be recorded.

Transect-To conduct this type of survey, a

weighted line is placed, as taut as possible, on the

bottom. A pole (usually made of metal) is taken
As with other surveys, the most expensive item will

likely be the ship or boat. Vessel costs will increase

with the distance from shore. In dives close to shore,

generally <1.5 km, or in bays or coves, a small boat,

such as a double or triple hull Boston Whaler, may be

suitable. A boat such as this may cost $50/day to rent;

however, it may be possible to borrow one through

an interagency loan. A complete set of scuba equipment, excluding a wet or dry suit, will be about $50/

day to rent or $1,500 to purchase. A wet suit can be

rented for about $10/day and be purchased for

about $400. A dry suit can be rented for about $25/

day and can be purchased for $500-1,000. Owing to

the variety of equipment, purchasing all the scuba

equipment and suits is best to ensure proper function and fit.

The scuba divers should be experienced and have

at least an open water certification. Commercial diver

wages typically are $1,500/week; given that safety

rul~s generally require no less than two divers, a

week-long survey will cost about $3,000. Noncommercial divers are available for considerably less.

The total cost for a diving survey in cold water that

uses commercial divers and is <1.5 km from shore

will run $3,600/week based on daily equipment

rental rates. For the same conditions and if all the

equipment is purchased (except the boat, which is

still rented), the cost will be about $5,700/week (the

equipment which may be reused will be about $2,400

total). Diving is obviously the least expensive survey

technique discussed in this chapter, but it is also the

most limited.

• data sheets

• underwater pad and grease pencil

• net bag with plastic liner

• cord (usually nylon) with weights

• stakes and hammer

• pole (for transect)

• flippers

• mask

• snorkel

• diver knife

• protective gloves

• weights and weight belt

• buoyancy compensator

• regulator

• depth gauge

• air tank

• camera

• wet or dry suit

• boat or ship (depending on the distance from

shore)

Material and Personnel-The necessary equipment

will depend on the survey location. The following list

Data Collection-It should be possible to categorize

and measure collected debris with a high degree of

accuracy; however, the larger debris not brought up

may be difficult to categorize due to algal growth and

time allotted for each dive. Along with the sorting of

the data, the following information should be collected at each dive.

• date

• exact location of dive (often distance from shore)

• sampling quadrat(s) or line segment(s) sampled

• visibility

• bottom topography (e.g., rocky or sandy)

• number, type, size, and condition of debris not collected

• depth

Suggested data forms for use in quadrat and

transect techniques are presented in Figures 11 and

12, respectively.

70 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

down to the line. As the diver moves along the line indicates the necessary gear for diving surveys in cold

holding the pole parallel to the bottom, one end of water <1.5 km offshore.

the pole is always touching the line and the pole is

held at at 90° angle to the line. As in the quadrat

technique, the diver monitors benthic debris occurring within the area swept by the pole. The

procedure may then be repeated along the other side

of the line.

The quadrat or transect procedures are repeated at

each of the selected blocks, vertices, or points. Again,

any new quadrats or transects must be the same size

and configuration to ensure conformity.

Weather-Getting in and out of the water from

shore or a boat can be difficult in rough weather.

Also, surges can make it difficult to run a transect or

collect debris.

Characteristics o/marine debris-As with submersible

surveys, the color, size, shape, extent of encrustation,

and degree of burial of objects will affect their sightability.

Turbidity-In highly turbid water, visibility will be

reduced, thus increasing the likelihood that objects

will be overlooked.

Equipment Variability-Generally, the larger the air

tanks, the longer a person can stay submerged and

thus a longer transect or a larger quadrat can be

sampled.

Measurement Variability-Training and experience

will affect the amount of debris seen in any given

survey.

Variables to Consider-
CHAPTER 5: Benthic Surveysfor Large Submerged Debris Items 71

Divers' Names Substrate Composition

Date (YrjMojDay) Quadrat Area (in SQ m)

Depth (in m)

Estimated Visibility (in m)

Small Debris Items Large Debris Items

(Collected) (From Underwater Pad)

Object Weight Category Comment. Object E.timated Category Marked Comment.

SiN (+/-)

(e.g., amount of

algae growth OD

'J item)

Figure 11

Suggested template for quadrat survey forms.

Quality Assurance Program

As with the quality assurance program plan for

research in submersibles, the quality assurance

program plan for diving surveys must consider

the safety of the divers as well as the accuracy

and repeatability of the data collection procedure.

Certified divers have safety trammg, but specific

hazards and risks associated with each dive should

also be considered. For reasons of safety and

efficiency, a detailed pre-dive plan should be

made. The plan should consider the following

information:
72 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Diven' Names Substrate Composition

Date (Yr/Mo/Day) Length of Line (in m)

Depth (in m) Length of Pole (in m)

Estimated Visibility (in m)

Small Debris Items Large Debris Items

(Collected) (From Underwater Pad)

Object Weight Category Comment. Object Eltimated Category Marked Comment.

Sise (+/-)

(e.g., amount of

algae growth OD

item)

Figure 12

Suggested template for transect survey forms.

• How much time is needed to sample predetermined transects and quadrats?

• How much time is needed in transit between shore

and site? Between sites?

• How much time is needed to set up quadrat or

transect lines?

• How will emergency situations be handled?

• How much time is needed at each dive site?

-How long will it take to decompress?

-How long will it take to get to and from the bottom?

-How long will it take to survey the transect or

quadrat?
CHAPTER 5: Benthic Surveysjor Large Submerged Debris Items 73

The only difference in calculations for transect surveys is that the average number or weight of benthic

debris per quadrat is now defined as the average

number or weight of benthic debris per transect, and

the area per transect is defined by the length of the

cord multiplied by twice the width of the pole.

-How much time can each diver spend in the water per day?

-How much time does each tank give each diver?

Items that might be included in the quality assurance program plan for the survey itself are as follows:

• categories used for describing (sorting) debris

• maximum size of debris to collect

• length of each transect or size of each quadrat

• measurement of visibility

• details of the data analysis

• diver experience

Repeatability should be ensured between the two

plans listed previously. The importance of this repeatability cannot be overstressed.

Analytical Procedures

n

A

a =

R=

S2=

/\

N=

total number of quadrats,

total area of study (ha),

area of each quadrat (ha),

ratio of total area to quadrat area,

variance between quadrats (#2/ha2 or

kg2/ha2 ),

estimate of total amount or weight of

debris in the area of study (# or kg) or

both, and

variance associated with the estimate of

debris (#2/ha2 or kg2/ha2)

The two techniques-quadrat and transect-are similar. In each survey, the total number or weight (or

both) of benthic debris in the population of interest

is observed and collected if possible. The average

number or weight (or both) of debris is calculated

from all the samples and extrapolated to the total

area. The analysis is very similar to that described

for trawl surveys, except that each quadrat or transect

should cover the same area, a, or bias can be

introduced.

The following are calculations for quadrat surveys

(Seber 1982): n

~X; - . A X=~,R=a

n

.! (Xi - X)2

S2"= ,-,i=:..c1__-=-_ n-l

where X = average amount or weight per quadrat

(#/ha or kg/ha) or both,

Xi = amount or weight in a specific quadrat

(#/ha or kg/ha) or both,

Summary _

1. Three survey techniques are discussed: trawl, submersible, and diving surveys. Because of limited

experience in using these three approaches when

assessing benthic debris, all techniques should be

considered experimental at this point, especially

submersible and diving surveys.

2. The number or weight of benthic debris is the

standard field measurement. Sampling results can

be extrapolated to estimate the amount of benthic

debris in the population of interest.

3. Of the three techniques, trawl surveys have been

used the most often.

4. Trawl surveys are the least expensive technique to

perform in deep water (>50 m), especially when

taking advantage of vessels of opportunity.

5. Quality assurance/quality control program plans

are extremely important for all aspects of each survey technique, with safety and repeatability being

of highest priority.

6. A statistician, who has dealt with similar types of

studies, should be consulted at the outset of survey

planning and be involved through the completion

of the study.
74 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Appendix

FORM

VESSEL

HAUL-POSITION

U-LL-- CRUISE u.....LJ HAUL u.....LJ

RATE FIRST READING RATE SECOND READING

OJ CITIf[]j CD CIIIIIIJ

79 80 82 8;' 84 85 86 88 89 91 92 94 95 96 97 98 100 101

END LORAN••• IT]~IT]~

---------- DUP. COL. 1-36 FROM ABOVE

LORAN START

14 15 111 17

IT] IT] OJ YO~ YEAR I10NTH DAY NA

~DE LONGITUD~

PYSIPON +12 J:rtIJ am -.-. la~l 45 S AR ••• __ e.

COL.

;'7 ;'8 ;'9 40 41 4;' 44 45 46 47 48

o

z: END ••••• lTIIJ ITIIJ ITIIJ om

E

0:::

o

LL.

-I--

-

en

o

a...

OUT __

METHOD

___---'MAX

0Il 9.89 DOOR +

ACCES.

___---'MAX

MIN MAX

TIME STANDARD USED

TIME START

EQUILIBRIUM

HAUL

IN

MIN

Sl4 Sl5 86

ITIJ

ITIIJ

65 66 67 68 MIN

DESCR.

,.lVl,L!,

GEARL...l......LJ

GEAR TYPE

cern

60 61

~~~~ IT]

;'7 ;'8 ;'9 40

ITIIJ

41 42 4;' 44

ITIIJ BOTTOM DEPTH WTD. AVG. (FM)

46 47 EQUIL. IT] DURATION HOUR (HRS.)

54 55 57 58

DISTANCE ITIIJ ~A~"~P

LCD6;' 64 WTD. AVG. . TRACE DEPTH

STRATUM (F~

WATER 70 71 7;' TEMPERATURES SUR- OTI (DEGREES c.) FACE

¥~~~OM l-l-J DESCR.

85 86 87 88

~~~f OUT ITIIJ

101

SUBSAMPLE METHOD D

GEAR DEPTH WTD. AVG. (FH>

E

0:::

o

LL.

r-...

o

I

o

I

(£)

CD

10;'

o

o kX~b~R D

I

a...

o REMARKS

WEATHER. SEA CONDITIONS

Appendix Figure A

Haul-position form used by the National Marine Fisheries Service during bottom trawl surveys in the Bering Sea.
CHAPTER 5: Benthic Surveys/or Large Submerged Debris Items 75

SPECIES CATCH FORM DP-002 83-01-15

VESSEL ITtJ CRUISE ITtJ HAUL [fD

YOUR NAHE

13 1. 15 1. 17 18 o 21 22 23 25 27 28 ~8 30 ~I 32

1"'._ ~nn~ !1 ,lg" • "II_~.

•

·

· .

·

·

·

·

·

•

· . ·

·

·

·

•

·

·

·

·

• .

·

•

·

·

·

•

·

·

·

· . . ·

·

·

·

·

Appendix Figure B

Species catch form used by the National Marine Fisheries Service during bottom trawl surveys in the Bering Sea.
76 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 138: Marine Debris Survey Manual

MARINE DEBRIS DATA FORM

Malle: _ Date: __

Ve••el: ( )

code

Hau 1: _

Percent of Catoh Saapled for ~arlne Debrl.: __

IUltS CAUGHT

'ou' TOC:oll

........ ........ oI.rm, STYIlOFOo\M0 lor O\h<r plastic: foaml OflCrn'I'

CJ buoys CJ

CJ cups CJ eggunons CJ c:=J tast-tCWJd contai~n CJ c:=J ~attlays CJ CJ pi«.. CJ CJ 0Ih., (,pecify) CJ c:::::J

c:::::J METAl

CJ bN.,ago can, CJ

CJ l>ottl< cap' CJ

CJ c:orer.atrYrs CJ

CJ aabtfish traps CJ

CJ SS gallon drums

CJ rusty CJ

CJ CJ

CJ piec~s CJ

CJ pull""" CJ

CJ wire CJ

CJ !Xhe, "pecify) CJ

CJ PAPER

CJ bag, c:::::J

c:::::J urdboard c:::::J

c:::::J canons CJ cups CJ n<wspaper c::=J CJ pi«.. CJ CJ "","r(~Yl CJ CJ

c:::::J \l1OOO Ileave willwood on lilt beacl1)

c:=J CrMJ or lobster traps CJ cr.ces CJ

CJ pallets CJ

c=I 1*<.. CJ

CJ "","rl~Yl CJ

CJ ClDTHlRAGS

pi«.. CJ

KARIMi DIBRIS SODRCES

Percent D.S. Percent Unknown

IMTAMOLID AMIKALB

Type of AAl_1 Muaber of Anl_1.

light sticl<, _

milk jug' _

rope _

shreling. largo _

I>pacJc 110..,." __ strapping band, _

tampon applicator, _

t0Y' __

~taDle sack, _

"write pr()(K1JOIl"

rings _

O\h<r lsp«ifYl------------

GLASS

boCtl<' _

fluoresce'" light tw., _ light bulb' _

poKe, _

- fsp«~Yl-----------­

RUII8ER

balloon' _

glov<s _

tire' _

~.rlne Debrl. Ite.

Peroent fore lin

0100 Isp«ifyl _

PlASTIC

bag, _

bo<t~s:

grren _

soda _

OIhe, _

cap,. I;", _

cup'. spoon,. fork'. straw' _

cl'ape" _

disposable IIghte" _

fishing li"" __

fish'ng nc:t _

floats & lu,.' _

hardha" _

Appendix Figure C

Marine debris data form for bottom trawls Oune 1990).
Chapter 6

Aerial Surveys

Techniques used in other assessment problems

have a potential for use in assessing marine debris

problems. The Assessment Working Group mentioned two techniques (Ribic 1990): aerial surveys

and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs). ROVs were

described in Chapter 5. This chapter discusses aerial

surveys.

General Considerations _

Researchers have just started to investigate the use of

aircraft to collect data on large to very large debris.

Ryan (1988a) sighted large plastic objects (>200 mm

in diameter) from an elevation of 130 m in a light

aircraft during calm seas. S. Johnson (NMFS, Auke

Bay, AK, pers. commun. August 1991) has used

aircraft to assess quantities of trawl web on some

Alaska beaches. The major advantage of aerial surveys is that large areas can be covered by aircraft in a

relatively short period of time. The disadvantage for

general use is the lack of consensus on the field

methods and the cost of renting the aircraft. Because

the technique is experimental, more research on

field design will be needed before its usefulness can

be established. For example, there is no consensus

on the type of aircraft to use, at what elevation or

speed to fly, what types of debris can be seen from

the air (we expect that very large debris will be seen),

or what the sampling design should be. Other areas

to investigate include the use of aerial photography

(see Golik and Rosenberg [1987] for tar balls) and

aerial reconnaissance as a tool specifically for pilot

studies for selecting beach or nearshore sites for

other sampling techniques discussed in Chapters 2

and 4.

Typical aircraft used for marine mammal surveys

are the Cessna 172 and the Twin Otter. Both are

above-wing aircraft (an airplane with the wing located above the fuselage) with good visibility. The

Cessna 172 should be used within 15 km of shore.

The Twin Otter can be used up to 320 km offshore.

The Twin Otter travels at faster speeds (140-160 km/

h) than does the Cessna 172 (120-140 km/h). The

Cessna has one engine and is safe to use in bays and

sounds and near flat beaches. The Twin Otter, with

two engines, is safer to use in the same areas as the

Cessna as well as over offshore areas and along rocky

coasts.

For safety reasons, both planes should be flown at

60 m or higher to reduce the effects of engine noise

on the behavior of nearby animals. For marine mammal and marine bird surveys, typical flying elevations

are 120-140 m. Assessments regarding optimal flying

elevation and speed for sighting marine debris have

not been done and will likely vary depending on survey objectives and sighting conditions.

The Cessna 172 seats a pilot and two observers; the

Twin Otter seats up to six people. In either plane two

people would be needed to make observations: one

person to observe and the other to record data. A

tape recorder may be used as a backup data recorder.

In the Twin Otter, there could be three people with

two making observations out of opposite windows

while the third records the data.

Rental costs for a plane and pilot are $70-85/hour

for the Cessna 172 and $800-900/hour for the Twin

Otter (3-h minimum). If the survey takes more than

1 day, the pilot receives $200 per diem.

Aerial Photography _

Aerial photography would be useful primarily for

concentrations of large to very large debris.

Primarily, a photograph can be taken so that the

concentration of debris can be analyzed in detail

later. This procedure is typically done for concentrations of marine mammals such as dolphin

species.

For aerial photography, a Twin Otter should be

used because typically the survey planes have the

camera mounts in place. A 9X9 T-ll camera can be

rented for about $1,OOO/mo, and film for this camera

will cost about $1,OOO/rol1. This type of camera is

suggested because of its ability to take photographs

of large areas, with high resolution (which is in

part due to the negatives being 22.9 cm2 )

(R. Grotefendt, Ebasco Environmental, Bellevue, WA,

pers. commun. August 1991). Similar cameras of

newer design may be used but will cost much more.

The camera weighs 25 kg or more and will have to be

77
More work must be done to assess the usefulness of

aerial surveys for monitoring marine debris. Aerial

phot?~raphy may be particularly useful for surveying

debns ill coastal areas and on beaches where debris is

concentrated.

78 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

shipped to the place of use. The cost of shipping is Conclusion _

not covered in the monthly rental fee. The plane,

which travels at speeds greater than 140 km/h, must

fly higher than 60 m to get useful pictures (to prevent blurring of images and to cover a large enough

area). The film development will be an additional

cost.
Glossary

Accumulation rate. Amount of debris added to a

sampling unit during a specified time period

(usually measured after cleaning of all debris).

Aerial survey. A survey made using an airplane or

helicopter.

Assessment studies. Studies that seek to quantify

distribution, movement, and/or trends in the

type and amount of marine debris over space

and/or time.

Backshore. Zone extending above normal high tide

level, but innundated by exceptionally high tides

or large waves during storms.

Baseline studies. Studies that describe the types and

amount of debris over space and/or time to

identify the magnitude of the marine debris

problem.

Beach. Whole of the area affected by normal wave

action, extending from a depth of 10 m below

water level at the lowest tide to the edge of the

permanent coast; beaches may be composed of

mud, sand, gravel, boulders, and/or rock ledges.

Composite. A container made with a cardboard

body and metal or plastic ends.

Diving survey. A survey made underwater by personnel using scuba or snorkeling equipment.

Fiberboard. Thick brown cardboard that may be

used to package cases of cans.

Fishing gear. Any physical item or combination of

items that is placed in the water for the intended

purpose of capturing or controlling for subsequent capture, living marine or aquatic organisms (Coe 1986).

Foreshore. A zone that includes that part of the

beach regularly covered and uncovered by high

tides.

Gill net. Lightweight singlestrand or multistrand

filament netting (Cole et al. 1990).

Gillnet floats. Small elongated rigid foamed floats

that are grooved and have four holes for attachment to the "cork line" of a gill net (Cole et al.

1990).

Knot. A measure of speed equal to nautical miles

per hour.

Laminate. A material made up of two or more components.

Landbased debris. Solid materials of human origin

that reach the sea through waterways, domestic

and industrial outfalls, or improper disposal on

beaches.

Large debris. Solid waste of human origin or manufacture that is >10 cm and ~1 m.

Marine debris (marine litter). Solid materials of human origin that are discarded at sea or reach the

sea through waterways or through domestic and

industrial outfalls (National Academy of Sciences

1975).

Medium debris. solid waste of human origin or

manufacture that is ~2.5 cm and ~10 cm.

Nautical mile. A measure of distance based on latitude and longitude; equal to 1.9 km (abbreviated as "nmi").

Nonparametric statistical method. A statistical

method is nonparametric if it may be used on

data with a nominal or ordinal scale of measurement and if no assumptions are made about the

data (i.e., distribution-free methods). Nonparametric methods are often used in situations

when data describe populations that are not

normally distributed. Some methods are analogues of parametric tests. Examples include. the

Mann-Whitney U test and the Kruskall-Wallis

test.

Non-reusable. A manufactured product designed

for one-time use (e.g., bottle, can) oil which no

deposit is normally charged.

Oceanic influences. A factor affecting a marine debris survey that is related to physical oceanographic processes such as tides and currents.

Open top cans. Completely sealed cans with no

reclosable lid that may be opened with a can

opener or have pull-off ends.

Parametric statistical method. A statistical method

derived by assuming a specified theoretical

model for the the data. The most common theoretical model used is the normal distribution.

Many parametric tests have nonparametric analogues. Examples include the t-test and F-test.

Population of interest. All or a selected type of debris within an area defined in space and time

and about which an inference is to be made.

Primary packaging. Any package that is in direct

contact with the product and without which the

product normally would not be sold.

Quality assurance program plan. An orderly collection of detailed and specific operational procedures that delineate how a project will be

implemented and what quality control procedures will be employed to ensure that data of

known and acceptable quality will be generated;

it further specifies how data will be evaluated to

ensure that it meets specified project goals

(Verner 1990).

79
80 NOAA Teclmical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

- ~Xi x=-- n

Sample variance. A measure of spread; the average

squared deviation of the observations from their

mean:

Returnable. The general term used for a beverage

container that is intended to be reused or recycled.

Sample mean. A measure of central tendency; the

average of the measurements.

Sampling frame. A listing of all possible sampling

units that can be defined in the target population; the sampling units used in the survey are

randomly or systematically chosen from the sampling frame.

Sampling unit. A defined area on which a measurement will be taken.

Sea state. A code combining information on wind,

waves, and swell height to describe oceanic conditions; numbered from 0 to 9. The most useful

in marine debris surveys are sea states 0 through

4, with sea states of 5 or greater being used for

severe conditions (i.e., gales). Sea states (SS) 0

through 4 are as follows:

SS 0 = sea like a mirror; winds <1 nmi; average

wave height is 0 m.

SS 1 = a smooth sea; ripples, very light winds;

average wave height 0-0.3 m.

552 = a slight sea; small wavelets; winds light to

gentle; average wave height 0.3-0.6 m.

55 3 = a moderate sea; large wavelets, crests beginning to break; winds gentle to moderate;

average wave height 0.6-1.2 m.

SS 4 = a rough sea; moderate waves; Whitecaps;

winds moderate to strong breeze; average wave

height 1.2-2.4 m.

(from Duxbury and Duxbury 1984).

Secondary packaging. Packaging used to collate

multiples of other containers, usually used while

transporting goods.

Shore. The zone between the water's edge at normal low tide and the shoreward limit of effective

wave action.

Shoreward limit of wave action. The landward limit

of effective wave action that generally occurs on

the upper foreshore and usually is identified by a

pronounced concentration of debris.

Small debris. Solid waste of human origin or manufacture that is <2.5 cm.

Standing stock. Amount of material found in the

sampling unit at a specified time.

Statistical hypothesis. A statement about a population parameter that a researcher is interested in

testing; the most usual parameters of interest are

population means or changes in population

means.

Statistical power. The probability of rejecting a null

hypothesis when that hypothesis is false. Used in

trend assessment studies to determine the number of survey units to be used. Typically, a power

of 75% or more is used in sample size calculations.

Stratification. The use of additional information to

divide the sampling frame into non-overlapping

groups and then selecting a simple random

sample from each group. Use of stratification

may produce a gain in precision in the parameter estimates.

Systematic survey. A survey design that follows a

rule for choosing the sampling units. For example, after a random starting point is chosen,

every kth sampling unit is used. Often used with

a grid to sample a large geographic area.

Target population. The difference between the

population of interest and any restricted-access

areas within the population of interest. If there

are no restrictions, the target population and the

population of interest are the same.

Transect. The linear sampling unit on a beach or in

the open water of known length. Width mayor

may not be defined. For strip transects, width is

fixed; for line transects, width is not fixed.

Trawl/seine web. Twisted or braided fishing net

(ColeetaI.1990).

Trawl survey. A survey made using a boat that pulls

a net at set depths in the water column (e.g.,

surface, mid-water, bottom).

Very large debris. Solid waste of human origin or

manufacture that is >1 m.

Vessels of opportunity. A ship dedicated to a purpose not related to studying debris but which

allows researchers to conduct debris studies that

do not conflict with the ship's primary purpose.

Vessel-source debris. Solid materials of human origin which were discarded at sea.

< Less than.

> Greater than.

::=; Less than or equal to.

Greater than or equal to.

(unbiased

formula)

~(X_X)2 52 = I

n-l
EPA

FAO

IOC

GIPME

CMC

MARPOL

NMML

IMO

NOAA

ROV

CPUE

List ofAcronyms

Environmental Protection Agency

Food and Agricultural Organization (of the United Nations)

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (of UNESCO)

Global Investigation of Pollution in the Marine Environment

Center for Marine Conservation

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

National Marine Mammal Laboratory

International Maritime Organization

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

remote operating vehicle

catch per unit effort

81

Citations

Ainley, D. G., W. R. Fraser, and L. B. Spear.

1990a. The incidence of plastic in the diets of Antarctic seabirds. In Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S.

Shomu/a and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 682-691. NOAA

Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMF5-SWFSC-I54.

Ainley, D. G., L. B. Spear, and C. A. Ribic.

1990b. The incidence of plastics in the diets of pelagic seabirds in the eastern equatorial Pacific region. In Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and M.

L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 653-664. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS,

NOAA-TM-NMF5-SWFSC-154.

Andersen, N.R., R. Dawson, and G. Kullenberg.

1986. The program of Global Investigation of Pollution in

the Marine Environment (GIPME) of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (I0C). Mar. Tech. Soc.

J. 20:21-28.

Andre,J. B., and R. Ittner.

1980. Hawaiian monk seal entangled in fishing net.

'Elepaio (J. Hawaiian Audubon SOc.) 41:51.

Anonymous.

1981. Nylon thread pollution. Mar. Poll. Bull. 12:397.

Atwood, D. K, F. J. Burton,J. E. Corredor, G. R. Harvey, A. J. MataJimenez, A. Vasquez-Botello, and B. A. Wade.

1987a. Results of the CARlPOL petroleum pollution monitoring project in the wider Caribbean. Mar. Pollut. Bull.

18:540-548.

Atwood, D. K, H. H. Cummings, W. J. Nodal, and R. C. Culbertson.

1987b. The CARIPOL petroleum pollution monitoring

project and the CARIPOL petroleum pollution database. Caribbean Jour. Sci. 23:1-3.

Atwood, D. K, F.J. Burton,J. E. Corredor, G. R. Harvey, A.J. MataJimenez, A. Vasquez-Botello, and B. A. Wade.

1987c. Petroleum pollution in the Caribbean. Oceanus

30:25-32.

Augerot, X.

1988. Plastic in the ocean: what are we doing to clean it

up? Washington Sea Grant Marine Advisory Services, Univ.

Washington, Seattle, WA, 8 p.

Austin, H. M., and P. M. Stoop-Glas.

1977. The distribution of polystyrene spheres and nibs in

Block Island Sound during 1972-1973. Chesapeake Sci.

18:89-92.

Azzarello, M. Y, and E. S. Van Vleet.

1987. Marine birds and plastic pollution. Mar. Ecol. Prog.

Ser. 37:295-303.

Baba, N., K Yoshida, M. Onoda, N. Nagai, and S. Toishi.

1988. Results of research on floating fishing gear and fish

net fragments in the area southwest of the Pribilof Islands

and off southern coasts of the Aleutian Islands, July-August

1985. In Proceedings of the North Pacific Rim fisherman's

conference on marine debris; 13-16 October 1987, KailuaKona, HI (D. L. Alverson and J. A. June, eds.), p. 143-

164. Natural Resources Consultants, Seattle, WA.

Baba, N., M. Kiyota, and K Yoshida.

1990. Distribution of marine debris and northern fur seals in

the eastern Bering Sea. In Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989,

Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and M. L. Godfrey eds.),

p.419-430. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMF5-

SWFSC-154.

Bakkala, R. G., and K Wakabayashi, eds.

1985. Results of the cooperative U.S.:Japan groundfish investigations in the Bering Sea during May-August 1979. Int.

North Pacific Fisheries Comm., Vancouver, Canada, 249 p.

Balazs, G. H.

1979. Synthetic debris observed on a Hawaiian monk seal.

'Elepaio (J. Hawaiian Audubon Soc.) 40:43-44.

1985. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion. In Proceedings of the workshop on the

fate and impact of marine debris; 27-29 November 1984,

Honolulu, HI. NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS, NOAA-TMNMF5-SWFC-54.

Baltz, D. M., and G. V. Morejohn.

1976. Evidence from seabirds of plastic particle pollution off

central California. Western Birds 7:111-112.

Barnard, J., W. Myers, J. Pearce, F. Ramsey, M. Sissenwine, and

W. Smith.

1985. Surveys for monitoring changes and trends in renewable resources: forests and marine fisheries. The American

Statistician 39:363-373.

Bayer, R. D., and R. E. Olson.

1988. Plastic particles in 3 Oregon fulmars. Oregon Birds

14:155-156.

Bean, M.J.

1984. United States and international authorities applicable

to entanglement of marine mammals and other organisms

in lost or discarded fishing gear and other debris. Rep. to

Mar. Mamm. Comm. Washington, D.C., 56 p.

1987. Legal strategies for reducing persistent plastics

in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18(6B):

357-360.

Berger,J. D., and C. E. Armistead.

1987. Discarded net material in Alaskan waters, 1982-84.

NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS F/NWC-110.

Bigg, M. A.

1979. Incidence of adult northern fur seals entangled in debris on St. Paul Island, 1978. Background paper submitted

to the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Standing Scientific Committee, North Pacific Fur Seal Commission, 9-13 April 1979,

Washington, D.C., Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, British Columbia V9R SK6, Canada, 6 p.

1982. Sizes of scrap fishnet and plastic packing bands from

western Vancouver Island during August-September

1982. Background paper submitted to the 26th Annual

Meeting of the Standi,ng Scientific Committee, North Pacific Fur Seal Commission, 28-29 March 1983, Washington

D.C. Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, British Columbia

V9R SK6, Canada, 4 p.

Bingel, E, D. Avsar, and M. Unsal.

1987. A note on plastic materials in trawl catches in the

north-eastern Mediterranean. Meeresforsch 31:227-233.

Bond, S. I.

1971. Red phalarope mortality in Southern California.

Calif. Birds 2:97.

Bonner, W. N., and T. S. McCann.

1982. Neck collars on fur seals, Arctocephalus gazella, at South

Georgia. Br. Antarct. Surv. Bull. 57:73-77.

Bourne, W. R. P.

1983. Reappraisal of the threats to seabirds. Mar. Pollut.

Bull. 14:1-2.

1985. Turtles and pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 16:177-178.

83
84 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Bourne, W. R. P. (chair).

1990. Report of the working group on entanglement of marine life. In Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI,

(R. S. Shomura and M. L. Godfrey, ed~.), p. 1207-1215.

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMF5-SWFSC-154.

Bourne, W. R. P., and M.]. Imber.

1982. Plastic pellets ·collected by a prion on Gough Island,

central South Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 13:20-21.

Brockwell, P.]., and R. A. Davis.

1989. Time series: theory and methods. Springer-Verlag,

New York. 519 p.

Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson.

1984. The need for distance data in transect counts. ].

Wildl. Manage. 48:1248-1254.

Burnham, K. P., D. R. Anderson, and]. L. Laake.

1980. Estimation of density from line transect sampling of

biological populations. Wildl. Monogr. 72.

1985. Efficiency and bias in strip and line transect sampling.

]. Wildl. Manage. 49:1012-1018.

Butler,]. N., and B. F. Morris.

1974. Quantitative monitoring and variability of pelagiC tar

in the North Atlantic. In Marine pollution monitoring (petroleum), proceedings of a symposium and worksliop held

at NBS, 13-17 May 1974, Gaithersburg, Maryland. NBS

Spec. publ. 409.

Caddy,]. R.

1976. Practical considerations for quantitative estimation of

benthos from a submersible. In Underwater research (E.A.

Drew, J. N. Lythgoe, and]. D. Woods, eds.), p. 285-

298. Academic Press Inc., NY

Calkins, D. G.

1985. Stellar sea lion entanglement in marine debris. In Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of marine

debris; 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, HI (R. S.

Shomura and H. O. Yoshida, eds.), p. ;308-314. NOAA

Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMF5-SWFC-54.

Carpenter, E.].

1976. Plastics, pelagic tar, and other li~ter. In Strategies for

marine pollution monitoring (E.D. Goldberg, ed.) p. 77-

89. John Wiley and Sons. NY.

Carpenter, E.]., and K. L. Smith,Jr.

1972. Plastics on the Sargasso Sea surface. Science

175:1240-1241.

Carpenter, E.]., S.]. Anderson, G. R. Harvey, H. P. Miklas, and B.

B. Peck.

1972. Polystyrene spherules in coastal waters. Science

178:749-750.

Carr, A.

1986. Rips, FADS, and little loggerheads. BioScience

36:92-100.

1987. Impact of non-degradable marine debris on the ecology and survival outlook of sea turtles. Mar. Pollut. Bull.

18(6B) :352-356.

Carr, A. H., E. H. Amaral, A. W. Hulbert, and R. Cooper.

1985. Underwater survey of simulated lost demersal and lost

commercial gill ne~ off New England. In Proceedings of

the workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris,

27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, HI (R.S. Shomura and

H.O. Yoshida, eds.), p. 439-447. NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMF5-SWFC-54.

Caulton, E., and M. Mocogni.

1987. Preliminary studies of man-made litter in the Firth of

Forth, Scotland. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18(6B):446-450.

Cawthorn, M. W.

1985. Entanglement in and ingestion of plastic litter by marine mammals, sharks, and turtles in New Zealand

waters. In Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and

impact of marine debris, 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu

HI (R.S. Shomura and H.O. Yoshida, eds.), p. 336-

343. NOAA Tech Memo. NOAA-TM-NMF5-SWF5-54.

1989. Impacts of marine debris on wildlife in New Zealand

coastal waters: Marine debris in New Zealand's coastal waters; proceedings of the national workshop on marine debris, Department of Conservation, 9 March 1989,

Wellington.

CEE (Center for Environmental Education).

1986. Marine wildlife en tanglement in North America. Center for Environmental Education, Washington

D.C. 219 pp.

1987a. Plastics in the ocean: more than a litter problem. Center for Environmental Education, Washington

D.C. 128 pp.

1987b. 1986 Texas coastal cleanup report. Center for Environmental Education, Washington, D.C. 56 p.

1988. Texas coastal cleanup report. Center for Environmental Education, Washington, D.C. 105 pp.

CMC (Center for Marine Conservation).

1991. Cleaning North America's beaches, 1990 beach

cleanup results. Center for Marine Conservation, Washington, D.C. 291 p.

Clark, R. B.

1986. Marine pollution. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 215 pp.

Coe,]. M.

1986. Derelict fishing gear: disaster or nuisance? M.A. thesis,

Univ. of Wash., Seattle, WA. 79 p.

Cole, C. Andrew, John P. Kumer, David A. Manski, and Daniel V.

Richards (eds).

1990. Annual report of National Park Marine Debris Monitoring Program: 1989 marine debris Survey. Tech. Report

NPS/NRWV/NRTR-90/04.

Coleman, F. C., and D. H. S. Wehle.

1984. Plastic pollution: a world-wide problem. Parks 9:9-

12.

Colton,]. B.,Jr.

1974. Plastics in the ocean. Oceanus 18:61-64.

Colton,]. B.,Jr., F. D. Knapp, and B. R. Burns.

1974. Plastic particles in surface waters of the northwestern

Atlantic. Science 185:491-497.

Conant, S.

1984. Man-made debris and marine wildlife in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. 'Elepaio 1 (}. Hawaiian Audubon

Soc.) 44:87-88.

Connors, P. G., and K.. G. Smith.

1982. Oceanic plastic particle pollution: suspected effect on

fat deposition in red phalaropes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 13:

18-20.

Conover, W.].

1980. Practical nonparametric statistics. John Wiley and

Sons, NY, 493 p.

Corredor,]. E., D. K. Atwood, A. Mata, and A. Vasquez-Botello

(eds.).

1987. Proceedings of the CARIPOL symposium on research

and monitoring of petroleum pollution in the Caribbean

Sea and Adjacent Regions convened in La Parguera, Puerto

Rico, 2-6 December 1985. Caribbean Jour. Sci. 23(1).

Crittenden, R. N.

1989. Abundance estimation based on echo counts. Ph.D.

dissertation, Univ. Washington, Seattle, 169 p.
Croxall,].

1990. Impact of incidental mortality on Antarctic marine

vertebrates. Antarctic Science 2:1.

Croxall,]. P., S. Rodwell, and I. L. Boyd.

1990. Entanglement in man-made debris of Antarctic fur

seals at Bird Island, South Georgia. Marine Mammal Science 6:221-233.

Cundell, A. M.

1973. Plastic materials accumulating in Narragansett Bay.

Mar. Pollut. Bull. 4: 187-188.

Dahlberg, M. L., and R. H. Day.

1985. Observations of man-made objects on the surface of

the North Pacific Ocean. In Proceedings of the workshop

on the fate and impact of marine debris, 27-29 November

1984, Honolulu, HI, (R.S. Shomura and H.O. Yoshida, eds.)

p.198-212. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFC-54.

Dart,]. K. G., and P. S. Rainbow.

1976. Some underwater techniques for estimating echinoderm populations. In Underwater research (E. A. Drew,].

N. Lythgoe, and]. D. Woods, eds.), p. 302-312. Academic

Press Inc., NY

Day, R. H.

1980. The occurrence and characteristics of plastic pollution

in Alaska's marine birds. M.S. thesis, Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks. 111 p.

Day, R. H., and D. G. Shaw.

1987. Patterns in the abundance of pelagic plastic and tar in

the North Pacific Ocean, 1976-1985. Mar. Pollut. Bull.

18(6B):31 1-316.

Day, R. H., D. G. Shaw, and S. E. Ignell.

1990a. The quantitative distribution and characteristics of

marine debris in the North Pacific Ocean, 1984-88. In

Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura

and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 182-211. NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154.

1990b. The quantitative distribution and characteristics of

neuston plastic in the North Pacific Ocean, 1984-88. In

Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura

and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 247-266. NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154.

Day, R. H., D. H. S. Wehle, and F. C. Coleman.

1985. Ingestion of plastic pollutants by marine birds. In

Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris; 27-29 November 1984, HI (R. S. Shomura and

H. O. Yoshida, eds.), p. 344-386. NOAA Tech. memo.

NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54.

Dean, T.

1985. Plastic hazards to birds. Br. Birds. 78:661-662.

DeGange, A. R., and T. C. Newby.

1980. Mortality of seabirds and fish in a lost salmon driftnet. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 11:322-323.

Dickerman, R. W., and R. G. Goelet.

1987. Northern Gannet starvation after swallowing styrofoam. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18:293.

Dixon, T.]., and T. R. Dixon.

1983. Marine litter distribution and composltlon in the

North Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 14:145-148.

Dixon, T. R.

1981. Danger on the beach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 12:3.

1987. More reports of d'angerous packages and munitions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18:146.

Citations 85

Dixon, T. R., and A.]. Cooke.

1977. Discarded containers on a Kent beach. Mar. Pollut.

Bull. 8:105-109.

Dixon, T. R., and A.]. Dixon.

1980. Marine litter surveillance at two sites on the western

Cherbourg Peninsula and westJutland shores of the English

Channel and southern North Sea. Marine Litter Research

Programme, Stage 2. The Tidy Britain Group, The Pier

Wagen, Great Britain, 80 p.

Dixon, T.R., and T.J. Dixon

1981a. Marine litter surveillance. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 12:289-295.

1981b. Aeolian Sky packaged chemicals pollution incident. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 12:53-56.

1983. Marine litter surveillance on the North Atlantic Ocean

shores of Portugal and the Western Isles of Scotland. Marine Litter Research Programme, Stage 5. The Tidy Britain

Group, the Pier Wagen, Great Britain, 70 p.

1986. Packaged dangerous goods washed on to beaches of

England and Wales. The Environmentalist 6:209-218.

Dixon, T. R. and C. Hawksley.

1980. Litter on the beaches of the British Isles. Report of the

First National Shoreline Litter Survey sponsored by The Sunday Times. Marine Litter Research Programme, Stage 3, The

Tidy Britain Group, 70 p.

Doubleday, W. G. and D. Rivard (eds.).

1981. Bottom trawl surveys: proceedings of a workshop; 12-

14 November 1980, Ottawa, Canada. Can. Spec. PubI. Fish.

Aquat. Sci. 58, 273 p.

Duerr, C.

1980. Plastic is forever: our nondegradable treasures.

Oceans, November 1980:59-60.

Duronslet, M.]., D. B. Revera, and K. M. Stanley.

1991. Marine debris and sea turtle strandings on beaches of the

upper Texas and southwestern Louisiana coasts, June 1987

through September 1989. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-SEFC.

Duxbury, A.C., and A. Duxbury.

1984. An introduction to the world's ocean. Addison

Wesley Publ. Co., Menlo Park, CA; Reading, MA, 408 p.

FAO.

1989. Report of the IOC/FAO/UNEP review meeting on the

persistent synthetic materials pilot survey; 12-14 June 1989,

Haifa, Israel, 46 p.

Feder, H. M., S. C.Jewett, and]. R. Hilsinger.

1978. Man-made debris on the Bering Sea fioor. Mar.

Pollut. Bull. 9:52-53.

Fowler, C. W.

1982. Entanglement as an explanation for the decline in

northern fur seals of the Pribilof Islands. Background paper submitted to the 25th Annual Meeting of the Standing

Scientific Committee of the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission, 9-13 April 1984, Moscow, U.S.S.R. NOAA, National

Marine Mammal Lab., 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Seattle,

WA 98115,24 p.

1984. Entanglement in fishing debris as a contributing factor

in the decline of northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands.

Background paper submitted to the 27th Annual Meeting of

the Standing Scientific Committee of the North Pacific

Fur Seal Commission, 9-13 April 1984, Moscow, U.S.S.R.

NOAA, National Marine Mammal Lab., 7600 Sand Point

Way N.E., Seattle, WA 98115,33 p.

1985. An evaluation of the role of entanglement in the

population dynamics of northern fur seals on the Pribilof

Islands. In Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and

impact of marine debris; 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu,

HI (R.S. Shomura and H. O. Yoshida, eds.), p. 291-

307. NOAA Tech~ Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54.
86 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

1987. Marine debris and northern fur seals: a case study.

Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18(6B):326-335.

1988. A review of seal and 'sea lion entanglement in marine

fishing debris. In Proceedings of the North Pacific Rim

fisherman's conference on marine debris; 13-16 October

1987, Kailua-Kona, HI (D. L. Alverson and]. A. June, eds.),

p. 16-63. Natural Resources Consultants, Seattle, WA.

Fowler, C. W., and T. R Merrell.

1986. Victims of plastic technology. Alaska Fish and Game

18:34-37.

Fowler, C. W. and T.]. Ragen.

1990. Entanglement studies, St. Paul Island, 1989 juvenile

male northern fur seals. NMFS, Northwest and Alaska

Fisheries Centers NWAFC Processed Report 90-06.

Fowler, C. W., R. Merrick, and N. Baba.

1989. Entanglement studies, St. Paul Island, 1988 juvenile

male roundups. NMFS, Northwest and Alaska Fisheries

Centers NWAFC Processed Report 89·-01.

Fowler, C. W., R. Merrick, and]. D. Baker.

1990. Studies of the population level effects of entanglement

on northern fur seals. In Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R.S. Shomura and H. O. Yoshida, eds.), p. 291-

307. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-154.

Fry, D. M., S. I. Fefer, and L. Sileo.

1987. Ingestion of plastic debris by Laysan albatrosses and

wedge-tailed shearwaters in the Hawaiian Islands. Mar.

Pollut. Bull. 18(6B):339-343.

Furness, B. L.

1983. Plastic particles in three Procellariiform seabirds from

the Benguela Current, South Africa. Mar. Pollut. Bull.

14:307-308.

Furness, R. W.

1985a. Plastic particle pollution: accumulation by Procellariiform seabirds at Scottish colonies. Mar. Pollut. Bull.

16:103--106.

1985b. Ingestion of plastic particles by seabirds at Gough Island, South Atlantic Ocean. Environ. Poll. (Series A)

38:261-272.

Garner,].

1967. Modern deep sea trawling gear. Fishing News

(Books) Ltd., London.

Gerrodette, T.

1985. Toward a population dynamics of marine debris. In

Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of

marine debris; 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, HI (R. S.

Shomura and H. O. Yoshida, eds.), p. 508-518. NOAA

Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-NMF5-SWFC-54.

Gilbert, R O.

1987. Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. NY

Golik,A.

1982. The distribution and behaviour of tar balls along the

Israeli coast. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Sci. 15:267-276.

Golik, A., and Y Gertner.

1990. Solid waste on the Israeli coast - composition,

sources, and management. In Proceedings of the second

international conference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989,

Honolulu, HI (RS. Shomura and M. L. Godfrey), p. 369-

378. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-154.

Golik, A. and N. Rosenberg.

1987. Quantitative evaluation of beach stranded tar

balls by means of air photographs. Mar. Pollut. Bull.

18:289-293.

Gosliner, M.

1985. Legal authorities pertinent to entanglement by marine

debris. In Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and

impact of marine debris; 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu,

HI (R. S. Shomura and H. O. Yoshida), p. 15-33. NOAA

Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA- MF5-SWFC-54.

Gould, P.]., and D.]. Forsell.

1989. Techniques for shipboard surveys of marine birds.

U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo Tech. Rep. 25. Washington, D.C.,

22 p.

Gramentz, D.

1988. Involvement of loggerhead turtle with the plastic,

metal, and hydrocarbon pollution in the Central Mediterranean. Mar. Poll. Bull. 19:11-13.

Gregory, M. R

1977. Plastic pellets on New Zealand beaches. Mar. Pollut.

Bull. 8:82-84.

1978a. Accumulation and distribution of virgin plastic granules on New Zealand beaches. N.Z.]. of Marine and Freshwater Research 12:399-414.

1978b. Virgin plastic granules on southwest Pacific beaches

and their possible environmental implications. Tenth Int.

Congress on Sedimentology 1:270-271.

1983. Virgin plastic granules on some beaches of eastern

Canada and Bermuda. Marine Environ. Res. 10:73-92.

1987. Plastics and other seaborne litter on the shores of New

Zealand's subantarctic islands. New Zealand Antarctic

Record 7:32-47.

1990. Plastics: accumulation, distribution, and environmental effects of meso-, macro-, and megalitter in surface waters

and on shores of the southwest Pacific. In Proceedings of

the second international conference on marine debris; 2-7

April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and M. L.

Godfrey), p. 55-84. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAATM-NMF5-SWFSC-154.

Gregory, M. R, R. M. Kirk, and M. C. G. Mabin.

1984. Pelagic tar, oil, plastics and other litter in the surface

waters of the New Zealand Sector of the Southern Ocean,

and on Ross Dependency shores. N.Z.]. Ant. Res. 6:12-28.

Harper, P. C., and]. A. Fowler.

1987. Plastic pellets in New Zealand storm-killed prions

(Pachyptila spp.). Notornis 34:65-70.

Hays, H. and G. Cormons.

1974. Plastic particles found in tern pellets, on coastal

beaches and at factory sites. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 5:44-46.

HMEPA (Hellenic Marine Environment Protection Association).

1991. Public awareness campaign to limit garbage pollution

of the Greek seas and beaches. Final rep. MEDSPA-89-1/

GR/008/GR/S, Mediterrean Special Action Programme for

the Environment of the European Communities.

Henderson,]. R.

1984. Encounters of Hawaiian monk seals with fishing gear

at Lisianski Island, 1982. Mar. Fish. Rev. 46:59-61.

1985. A review of Hawaiian monk seal entanglements in marine debris. In Proceedings of the workshop on the fate

and impact of marine debris; 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and H. O. Yoshida, eds.), p. 326-

335. NOAA Tech Memo. NOAA-TM-NMF5-SWF5-54.

1988. Marine debris in Hawaii. In Proceedings of the

North Pacific Rim fisherman's conference on marine debris; 13-16 October 1987, Kailua-Kona, HI. Natural Resources Consultants, Seattle, WA.

1990. Recen t en tanglemen ts of Hawaiian monk seals in marine debris. In Proceedings of the second international

conference on marine debris; 2-7 Apri11989, Honolulu, HI,

p. 540-553. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMF5-

SWFSC-154.
Henderson,]. R., and M. B. Pillos.

1985. Accumulation of net fragments and other marine debris in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Abstract only).

In Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of

marine debris; 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, HI (R. S.

Shomura and H. O. Yoshida, eds.), p. 326-335. NOAA

Tech Memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFS-54.

Henderson,]. R., S. L. Austin, and M. B. Pillos.

1987. Summary of webbing and net fragmen ts found on

northwestern Hawaiian Islands beaches, 1982-1986.

NOAA, NMFS, SWFC Admin. Rep. H-87-II, 15 p.

Heneman, B., and the Center for Environmental Education.

1988. Persistent marine debris in the North Sea, northwest

Atlantic ocean, wider Caribbean area, and the west coast of

Baja California. Unpubl. rep. to the Marine Mammal

Commission and National Ocean Pollution Program Office,

NOAA, USDC, Contr. Rep. MM3309598-5.

Heyerdahl, T.

1971. Atlantic Ocean pollution and biota observed by the

'Ra' Expeditions. BioI. Conservation 3:164-167.

High, W. L.

1985. Some consequences of lost fishing gear. In Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris: 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura

and H. O. Yoshida, eds.), p. 430--437. NOAA Tech Memo.

NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFS-54.

Hirsch, R. M., and]. R. Slack.

1984. A nonparametric trend test for seasonal data with serial dependence. Water Resources Research 20:727-732.

Hirsch, R. M.,]. R. Slack, and R. A. Smith.

1982. Techniques of trend analysis for monthly water quality

data. Water Resources Research 18:107-121.

Hiscock, K.

1987. Subtidal rock and shallow sediments using diving. In

Biological surveys of estuaries and coasts O. M. Baker and

w.]. Wolfe, eds.), p. 198-237. Cambridge United Publishing, Cambridge.

1989. Development of methods for surveys and monitoring

using diving. Progress in Underwater Science 13:57-64.

Hjelmeland, K., B. H. Pedersen, and E. M. Nilssen.

1988. Trypsin content in intestines of herring larvae, Clupea

harengus, ingesting inert polystyrene spheres or live crustacea prey. Mar. Bio. 98:331-335.

Holmstrom, A.

1975. Plastic films on the bottom of the Skagerack. Nature

(London) 255:622-623.

Horsman, P. V.

1982. The amount of garbage pollution from merchant

ships. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 13:167-169.

1985. Garbage kills. BBC Wildlife, August, 391-393.

Hoss, D. E., and L. R. Settle.

1990. Ingestion of plastics by teleost fishes. In Proceedings

of the second international conference on marine debris,

2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and M. L.

Godfrey), p. 693-709. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAATM-NMFS-SWFSC-154.

Ignell, S. E.

1985. Results of the 1985 research on the highseas squid

driftnet fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean. Document

submitted to by the International North Pacific Fisheries

Commission, Tokyo, Japan, November 1985. Northwest and

Alaska Fisheries Center, NMFS, NOAA, Auke Bay Laboratory, Auke Bay, Alaska.

Ignell, S. E., and M. L. Dahlberg.

1986. Results of cooperative research on the distribution of

marine debris in the North Pacific Ocean. Document subCitations 87

mitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Anchorage, AK, November 1986, NWAFC, NMFS,

NOAA, Auke Bay Lab., P. O. Box 210155, Auke Bay, AK.

99821,15 p.

IOC (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission)

1984. Manual for monitoring oil and dissolved/dispersed petroleum hydrocarbons in marine waters and on beaches;

Procedures for the petroleum component of the IOC Marine Pollution Monitoring System (MARPOLMON - Pl.

UNESCO Manuals and Guides No. 13,35 p.

Isaaks, E. H., and R. M. Srivastava.

1989. An introduction to applied geostatistics. Oxford

Univ. Press. NY.

Jewett, S. C.

1976. Pollutants of the Northeast Gulf of Alaska. Mar.

Pollut. Bull. 7:169.

Johnson, S. W.

1988. Deposition of entanglement debris on Alaskan

beaches. In Proceedings of the North Pacific Rim

fisherman's conference on marine debris, 13-16 October

1987, Kailua-Kona, HI (D. L. Averson and]. A.June, eds.),

p. 207-231. Natural Resources Consultants, Seattle, WA.

1989. Deposition, fate, and characteristics of derelict trawl

web on an Alaskan beach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 20:164-168.

1990a. Distribution, abundance, and source of entanglement

debris and other plastics on Alaskan beaches, 1982-88. In

Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura

and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 331-348. NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154.

1990b. En tanglemen t debris on Alaskan beaches, 1989.

NWAFC Processed Report 90-10. 16 p.

Johnson, S. W., and T. R. Merrell.

1988. Entanglement debris on Alaskan beaches, 1986.

NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS, F/NWC-126. 26 p.

Jones, L. L., and R. C. Fel'rero.

1985. Observations of net debris and associated entanglements in the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, 1978-

84. In Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact

of marine debris; 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, HI

(R. S. Shomura and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 183-

196. NOAA Tech Memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFS-54.

June,]. A.

1990. Type, source, and abundance of trawl-caught marine

debris off Oregon, in the eastern Bering Sea, and in Norton

Sound in 1988. In Proceedings of the second international

conference on marine debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu,

HI (R. S. Shomura and H. O. Yoshida, eds.), p. 279-

301. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC154.

Kartar, S., R. A. Milne, and M. Sainsbury.

1973. Polystyrene waste in the Severn estuary. Mar. Pollut.

Bull. 4:144.

Kartar, S., F. Abou-Seedo, and M. Sainsbury.

1976. Polystyrene spherules in the Severn estuary-A

progress report. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 7:52.

Keller, G. H.

1977. The submersible-a unique tool for marine geology. In Submersibles and their use in oceanography and

ocean engineering, Elsevier Scientific Pub!. Co.,

Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Kenyon, K. W., and E. Kridler.

1969. Laysan albatrosses swallow indigestible matter. Auk

86:339-343.
88 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Keppel, G.

1982. Design and analysis, a researcr.er's handbook, 2nd

edition. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, N].

Klemm, B., and D. Wendt.

1990. Beach confetti. Sea Frontiers 36:28-29.

Kubota, T.

1990. Synthdic materials found in the stomachs of longnose

lancetfish collected from Suruga Bay, central Japan. In

Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura

and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 710-717. NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154.

Kullenberg, G.

1986. The IOC programme on marine pollution. Mar.

Pollut. Bull. 17:341-352.

Laist, D. W.

1987. Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded

plastic debris in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut.

Bull. 18(6B):319-326.

Lenihan, H. S.,]. S. Oliver,]. M. Oakden, and M. D. Stephenson.

1990. Intense and localized benthic marine pollution

around McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. Mar. Pol. Bull.

21 :422-430.

Lentz, S. A.

1987. Plastics in the marine environment: legal approaches

for international action. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18(6B):361-

365.

Lettenmaier, D. P.

1978. Design considerations for ambient stream quality

monitoring. Water Resources Bulletin 14:884-902.

Lettenmaier, D. P., L. L. Conquest, and]. P. Hughes.

1982. Routine streams and rivers water quality trend monitoring review. C. W. Harris Hydraulics Laboratory. Dept.

of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA,

Technical Report No. 75.

Lindstedt, D. M., and]. C. Holmes.

1989. Debris is not a cheese: litter in coastal Louisiana. proceedings of the sixth symposium on coastal and ocean management, p. 1297-1310.

Lutz, P. L.

1990. Studies on the ingestion of plastic and latex by

sea turtles. In Proceedings of the second international

conference on marine debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI

(R. S. Shomura and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 719-

735. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-154.

Manski, D. A., W. P. Gregg, C. A. Cole, and D. V. Richards.

1991. Annual report of the national park marine debris

monitoring program, 1990 marine debris surveys. USDI

NPS Technical Report NPS/NRWV/NRTR-91. In press.

Manville, II, A. M.

1990. A survey of plastics on western Aleutian Island beaches

and related wildlife entanglement. In Proceedings of the

second international conference on marine debris; 2-7

April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and M. L.

Godfrey), p. 349-363. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAATM-NMF5-SWFSC-154.

MMC (Marine Mammal Commission).

1987. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission calendar year 1986. Rep. to Congress. NTIS PB98-154092,

193 p.

1991. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission calendar year 1990. Rep. to Congress. NTIS. 270 p.

MPDTF (Marine Plastic Debris Task Force).

1988. Marine plastic debris action plan for Washington

State. Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources. 45 pp.

Marquez,]. A., and I. Zandi.

1985. Litter management-measurement aspects. ]. Res.

Manage. Tech. 14:67-75.

McConnell, II E. (chair).

1990. Report of the working group on economic aspects of

marine debris. In Proceedings of the second international

conference on ·marine debris; 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu,

HI (R. S. Shomura and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 1235'-

1239. NOAA Tech. Memo. MFS, NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-154.

McCoy, F. W.

1988. Floating megalitter in the eastern Mediterranean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 19:25-28.

Meade, N. F., II M. Drazek, and V. R. Leeworthy.

1990. An economic perspective on the problem of marine

debris. In Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S.

Shomura and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 777-791. NOAA

Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154.

Merrell, T. R.

1980. Accumulation of plastic litter on beaches of Amchitka

Island, Alaska. Mar. Environ. Res. 3:171-184.

1984. A decade of change in nets and plastic litter from

fisheries off Alaska. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 15 :378-384.

1985. Fishnets and other plastic litter on Alaska beaches. In

Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris; 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, HI (R. S.

Shomura and H. O. Yoshida, eds.), p. 160-182. Memo.

NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFS-54.

Merrell, T. R., and S. W.Johnson.

1987. Surveys of plastic litter on Alaskan beaches, 1985.

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-116. 21 p.

Mio, S., and S. Takehama.

1988. Estimation of distribution of marine debris based on

the 1986 sighting survey. In Proceedings of the North Pacific Rim fisherman's conference on marine debris;· 13-16

October 1987, Kailua-Kona, HI (D. L. Alverson and]. A.

June, eds.), p. 64-94. Natural Resources Consultants, Seattle, WA.

Mio, S., S. Takehama, and S. Matsumura.

1990. Distribution and density of fioating objects in the

North Pacific based on 1987 sighting survey. In Proceedings of the second international conference on marine de,

bris; 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and M.

L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 212-246. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS,

NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154.

Morris, A. W., and E. I. Hamilton.

1974. Polystyrene spherules in the Bristol Channel. Mar.

Pollut. Bull. 5:26-27.

Morris, R.].

1980a. Floating plastic debris in the Mediterranean. Mar.

Pollut. Bull. 11: 125.

1980b. Plastic debris in the surface waters of the South

Atlantic. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 11:164-166.

Nasu, ll, and II Hiramatsu.

1990. Distribution and density of marine debris in the North

Pacific based on sighting surveys in 1989. Document submitted to the Annual Meeting of the International North

Pacific Fisheries Commission, Vancouver, Canada, 1990 October. Fisheries Agency of Japan, National Research Insti-
.' Citaticms 89

Pritzlaff, j. A. (ed.).

1979. International safety standard guidelines for the operation of undersea vehicles. Marine Technology Society,

Washington, D.C.

Pruter, A. T.

1987a. Sources, quan tities and distribution of persistent

plastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull.

18(6B):305-310.

1987b. Plastics in the marine environment. Fisheries

12:16-17.

Randall, B. M., R. M. Randall, and G.j. Rossouw.

1983. Plastic particle pollution in great Shearwater (Puffinius

gravis) from Gough Island. South African Journal of Antarctic Research 13:49-50.

Ribic, C. A. (chair).

1990. Report of the working group on methods to assess the

amount and types of marine debris. In Proceedings of the

second international conference on marine debris; 2-7

April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and M. L.

Godfrey, eds.), p. 1201-1206. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS,

NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154.

1991. Design of shoreline surveys for aquatic litter pollution.

Final report to U.S. EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine

Protection. EPA/600/3-91/026. NTIS PB 91179051/AS.

Ribic, C. A., and L. j. Bledsoe.

1986. Design of surveys for density of surface marine debris

in the North Pacific. NOAA, NMFS, NWAFC Processed

Rept. No. 267. 69 p.

1990. Estimating the density of floating marine debris: Design considerations. In Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p.

302-308. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-154.

Ribic, C. A., and S. w'Johnson.

1990. Guidelines for the design of beach debris surveys. In

Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura

and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 392-402. NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMF5-SWFSC-154.

Rice, W. D., and A. A. Wolman.

1982. Whale census in the Gulf of Alaska, June to August

1980. Rep. to the Int. Whaling Comm. 32:491-497.

Risebrough, R. W.

1969. The sea: should we write it off as the future garbage

pit? From background book supplement, 13th National

Conference, U.S. National Comm. for UNESCO, San Francisco, 23-25 November. 23 p.

Rothstein, S. 1.

1973. Plastic particle pollution of the surface of the

Atlantic Ocean: evidence from a seabird. Condor 75:

344-345.

Ryan, P. G.

1985. Plastic pollution at sea and in seabirds off southern

Africa (Abstract only). In Proceedings of the workshop on

the fate and impact of marine debris; 27-29 November

1984, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and H. O. Yoshida,

eds.), p. 523. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-NMF5-

SWFe-54.

1986. The incidence and effects of ingested plastic in seabirds. Ms.C. thesis, Univ. Cape Town, South Africa.

1987a. The effects of ingested plastic on seabirds: correlations between plastic load and body condition. Environ.

Pollut. 46:119-125.

on America's beaches: a national

assessment. Center for Marine Conservation, Washington

tute of Far Seas Fisheries, 7-1 Orido 5 chome, Shimizu,

Shizuoka,Japan 424.28 p.

NAS (National Academy of Sciences).

1975. Marine litter. In Assessing potential ocean

pollutan ts. A report of the study panel on assessing potential ocean pollutants to the Ocean Affairs Board, Commission on Natural Resources, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Neilson,j.

1985. The Oregon experience. In Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris; 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and H. O.

Yoshida, eds.), p. 154-159. NOAA Tech Memo. NOAA-TMNMF5-SWF5-54.

Ogi,H.

1990. Ingestion of plastic particles by sooty and short-tailed

shearwaters in the North Pacific. In Proceedings of the

second international conference on marine debris, 2-7

April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and M. L.

Godfrey, eds.), p. 635-652. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS,

NOAA-TM-NMF5-SWFSC-154.

O'Hara, K.j.

1989. Trash

D.C.

1990. National marine debris data base: findings on beach

debris reported by citizens. In Proceedings of the second

international conference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989,

Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p.

379-391. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-154.

O'Hara, K. j., and P. Debenham.

1989. Cleaning America's beaches: 1988 national beach

cleanup results. Center for Marine Conservation, Washington, D.C. 202 p.

O'Hara, K.j., and L. K. Younger.

1990. Cleaning North America's beaches, 1989 beach

cleanup results. Center for Marine Conservation, Washington, D.C. 310 p.

O'Hara, K.j., S. Iudicello, and R. Bierce.

1988. A citizens guide to plastic in the ocean: more than

a litter problem. Center for Environmental Education,

Washington, D.C. 131 P

Palmer, H. D.

1977. The use of manned submersibles in the study of ocean

waste disposal. In Submersibles and their use in oceanography and ocean engineering (R. A. Geyer, ed.), p. 317-334.

Elsevier Scientific Publ. Co., Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Parker, P. A.

1990. Clearing the oceans of plastic. Sea Frontiers 36: 18-

27.

Parslow,j. L. F., and D.j.Jefferies.

1972. Elastic thread pollution in puffins. Mar. Pollut. Bull.

3:43-45.

Pettit, T. N., G. S. Grant, and G. C. Whittow.

1981. Ingestion of plastics by Laysan albatross. Auk 98:839-

841.

Plotkin, P., and A. F. Amos.

1990. Effects of anthropogenic debris on sea turtles in the

northwestern Gulf of Mexico. In Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris; 2-7 April

1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and M. L. Godfrey,

eds.), p. 736-743. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TMNMF5-SWFSe-154.
90 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

1987b. The incidence and characteristics of plastic particles

ingested by seabirds. Mar. Environ. Res. 23: 175-206.

1988a. Effects of ingested plastic on seabird feeding: evidence from chickens. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 19:125-128.

1988b. The characteristics and distribution of plastic particles at the sea-surface off the Southwestern Cape Province,

South Mrica. Mar. Environ. Res. 25:249-273.

1988c. Intraspecific variation in plastic ingestion by seabirds and the fiux of plastic through seabird populations. Condor 90:446-452.

1990a. The effects of ingested plastic and other marine debris on seabirds. In Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p.

623-634. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-l.54.

1990b. The marine plastic debris problem off southern Mrica: types of debris, their environmental effects, and control measures. In Proceedings of the second international

conference on marine debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI

(R. S. Shomura and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 85-

102. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM- MFSSWFSC-154.

Ryan, P. G., and S. jackson.

1987. The life span of ingested plastic particles in seabirds

and their effect on digestive efficiency. Mar. Pollut. Bull.

18:217-219.

Ryan, P. G., A. D. Connell, and B. D.. Gardner.

1988. Plastic ingestion and PCBs in seabirds: is ,there a relationship? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 19:174-176.

Sadove, S. S., and S.j. Morreale.

1990. Marine mammal and sea tuttle encounters wiTh marine debris in the New York Bight and the northeast

Atlantic. In Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R

S. Shomura and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 560-570. NOAA

Tech. Memo. MFS, NOAA-TM-NMF5-SWFSC-154.

Sameoto, D. D., and L. O. Jaroszynski.

1969. Otter surface sampler: A new neuston net. j. Fish.

Res. Bd. Canada 26:2240-2244.

Sanger, G. A.

1974. On the effect of fish net scraps and other oceanic debris in northern fur seals. Background paper submitted to

the 17th Annual Meeting of the Standing Scientific Committee of the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission, 11-25 March

1974, Ottawa, Canada, National Marine Mammal Lab., 7600

Sand Point Way N.E., Seattle, WA 98115.9 p.

Scheffer, V.B.

1950. Experiments in the marking of seals and sea lions.

U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep. Wildl. 4. 33 p.

Schrey, E., and G.j. M. Vauk.

1987. Records of entangled Gannets (Sula bassana) at Helgoland,

German Bight. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18(6B):350-352.

Scordino, j.

1985. Studies on fur seal entanglement, 1981-84, St. Paul

Island, Alaska. In Proceedings of the workshop on the fate

and impact of marine debris; 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and H. O. Yoshida, eds.), p. 278-

290. NOAA Tech Memo. NOAA-TM-NMF5-SWF5-54.

Scordino, j., and R. Fisher.

1983. Investigations on fur seal entanglement in net fragments, plastic bands and other debris in 1981 and 1982, St.

Paul Island, Alaska. Background paper submitted to the

26th Annual Meeting of the Standing Scientific Committee

the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission, 28 March-8 April

1983, Washington, D.C., NOAA, National Marine Mammal

Lab., 7600 Sand PointWay NE, Seattle, WA 98115.90 p.

Scordino, j., G. Beekman, H. KaJimura, K. Yoshida, Y. Fujimaka,

and M. Tomita.

1984. Investigations on fur seal entanglement in 1983 and

comparisons with 1981 and 1982 entanglement data, St.

Paul Island, Alaska. Document submitted to the 27th Annual meeting of the Standing Scientific Committee, North

Pacific Fur Seal Commission, 29 March-6 April 1984,

Moscow. NOAA, National Marine Mammal Lab., 7600

Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115. 26 p.

Scordino,j., H. Kajimura, N. Baba, and A. Furuta.

1988. Fur seal entanglement studies in 1984, St. Paul Island,

Alaska. Tn Fur seal investigations, 1985 (P. Kozloff and

H. Kajimura, eds.). p. 70-78. NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS

F/NWC-146.

Scott, G.

1972. Plastics packaging and coastal pollution. Int. Journal

of Env. Studies 3:35-36.

1975. The growth of plastic packaging litter. Int. Journal of

Env. Studies 7:131-132.

Seber, G. A. F.

1982. The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. Charles Griffin and Company Ltd., London, 654 p.

Shaughnessy, P. D.

1980. Entanglement of Cape fur seals with man made

objects. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 11:332-336.

Shaw, D. G.

1977. Pelagic tar and plastic in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering

Sea 1975. Sci. Total Environ. 8: 13-20.

Shaw, D. G., and G. A. Mapes.

1979. Surface circulation and the distribution of pelagic tar

and plastic. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 10:160-162.

Shaw, W.

1990. Summary of marine debris sightings during Canadian

high seas research surveys, 1989-1990. Document presented at the Annual Meeting of the International North

Pacific Fisheries Commission, Vancouver, British Columbia,

Canada, November 1990. Department of Fisheries and

Oceans, Biological Sciences Branch, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C., Canada V9R 5K6.

Shiber,j. G.

1979. Plastic pellets on the coast of Lebanon. Mar. Pollut.

Bull. 10:28-30.

1982. Plastic pellets on Spain's 'Costa del Sol' beaches.

Mar. Pollut. Bull. '13:409-412.

Shomura, R. S., and H. O. Yoshida, eds.

1985. Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of

marine debris; 27-19 March 1984, Honolulu, HI. NOAA

Tech. Memo, NMFS NOAA-YM-NMFS-SWFC-54.

Sileo, L. (chair).

1990. Report of the working group on ingestion. In Proceedings of the second international conference on marine

debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and M.

L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 1226-1234. NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMF5-SWFSC-154.

Sileo, L., P. R. Sievert, M. D. Samuel, and S. I. Fefer.

1990. Prevalence and characteristics of plastic ingested by

Hawaiian seabirds. Tn Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 665-

681. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-154.
Slip, D.]., and H. R Burton.

1990. The composition and origin of marine debris stranded

on the shores of subantarctic Macquarie Island. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura

and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 403-416. NOAA Tech.

Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154.

Slip, D.]., K. Green, and E.]. Woehler.

1990. Ingestion of an thropogenic articles by seabirds at

Macquarie Island. Marine Ornithology 18:74-77.

Sokal, R. R, and F.]. Rohlf.

1981. Biometry, 2nd edition. W. H. Freeman and Co., San

Francisco.

Stewart, B. S., and P. K. Yochem.

1985. Entanglement of pinnipeds in net and line fragments

and other debris in the Southern California Bight. In Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of marine

debris, 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, HI (R. S.

Shomura and H. O. Yoshida, eds.), p. 315-325. NOAA

Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54.

1987. Entanglement of pinnipeds in synthetic debris and

fishing net and fishing line fragments at San Nicolas and

San Miguel Islands, California, 1978-1986. Mar. Pollut.

Bull. 18(6B):336-339.

1990. Pinniped entanglement in synthetic materials in the

Southern California Bight. In Proceedings of the second

international conference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989,

Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p.

792-809. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-154.

Takehama, S.

1990. Estimation of damages to fishing vessels caused by marine debris, based on insurance statistics. In Proceedings

of the second international conference on marine debris;

2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and M. L.

Godfrey, eds.), p. 792-809. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS,

NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154.

Trulli, W. R, H. K. Trulli, and D. P. Redford.

1990. Characterization of marine debris in selected harbors

of the United States. In Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 304-

324. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-154.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).

1987. Standard operating procedures for the collection and

at-sea processing of neuston samples. SOP No. 4-35, Revision No. 01, U.S. EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Incineration-at-Sea Program.

1990a. Methods to manage and control plastic wastes, report

to Congress. Office of Solid Waste/Office of Marine and

Estuarine Protection, EPA/530-SW-89-051. Washington,

D.C.

1990b. Final data report for the study of floatables in U.S.

waters (Harbbr Studies Program) November 1988 through

February 1989. Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection,

EPA 503/4-90-003. Washington, D.C. 139 pp. + Appendices.

van Dolah, R F., V. G. Burrell,Jr., and S. B. West.

1980. The distribution of pelagic tar and plastics in the

South Atlantic Bight. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1l:352-356.

van Franeker,]. A.

1983. Plastics-een bedreiging voor zeevogels (with English

summary). Nbr. NSO 4:41-61.

Citations 91

1985. Plastic ingestion in the North Atlantic fulmar. Mar.

Pollut. Bull. 16:367-369.

van Franeker,]. A. and P.]. Bell.

1988. Plastic ingestion by petrels breeding in Antarctica. Mar. Poll. Bull. 19:672-674.

Vauk, G.]. M., and E. Schrey.

1987. Litter pollution from ships in the German Bight.

Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18(6B):316-318.

Venrick, E. L., T. W. Backman, W. C. Bartram, C. ]. Platt, M. S.

Thornhill, and R. E. Yates.

1973. Man-made objects on the surface of the North Pacific

Ocean. Nature 241:271.

Verner, S. S.

1990. Handbook for preparing quality assurance project

plans for environmental measurements. Technical Resources, Inc., Rockville, MD.

Wagner, K. D.

1990. Medical wastes and the beach washups of 1988: Issues

and impacts. In Proceedings of the second international

conference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI

(R. S. Shomura and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 811-

824. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-154.

Walker, W. A., and]. M. Coe.

1990. Survey of marine debris ingestion by odontocete

cetaceans. In Proceedings of the second international

conference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI

(R. S. Shomura and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p. 747-

774. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-154.

Wallace, N.

1985. Debris entanglement in the marine environment:

a review. In Proceedings of the workshop on the fate

and impact of marine Debris; 27-29 November 1984,

Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and H. O. Yoshida, eds.),

p. 259-277. NOAA Tech Memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWF5-

54.

Wehle, D. H. S., and F. C. Coleman.

1983. Plastics at sea. Nat. Hist. (Feb.) :20-26.

Wilber, R].

1987. Plastics in the north Atlantic. Oceanus 30:61-68.

Willoughby, N. G.

1986. Man-made litter on the shores of the Thousand Island

Archipelago,Java. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 17:224-228.

Wolfe, D. A.

1987. Persistent plastics and debris in the ocean: an international problem of ocean disposal. Mar. Pollut. Bull.

18(6B):303-305.

Wong, C. S., D. R Green, and W.]. Cretney.

1974. Quantitative tar and plastic waste distributions in the

Pacific Ocean. Nature 247:30-32.

Wong, C. S., D. MacDonald, and W.]. Cretney.

1976. Distribution of tar and other particulate pollutants

along the Beaufort Sea coast. Beaufort Sea Project, Victoria,

British Columbia, Canada. Beaufort Sea Technical Report

No. 13.

Yagi, N., and M. Nomura.

1988. Sighting survey on marine debris in the mid-western

Pacific from 1977 through 1986. In Proceedings of the

North Pacific Rim fisherman's conference on marine debris; 13-16 October 1987, Kailua-Kona, HI (D. L. Alverson

and]. A. June, eds.), p. 130-142. Natural Resources Consultants, Seattle, WA.
92 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 108: Marine Debris Survey Manual

Yoshida, K, and N. Baba.

1985a. A survey of drifting stray fishing net fragments in the

north.ern Sea of Japan (Western Pacific Ocean).

Document submitted to the 28th Meeting of the Standing

Scientific Committee of the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission, Tokyo, 4-12 April 1985, 13 pp.

1985b. Results of a survey on drifting fishing gear or fish net

pieces in the Bering Sea. Document submitted to the 28th

Meeting of the Standing Scientific Committee of the North

Pacific Fur Seal Commission, 4-12 April 1985, Tokyo, 13 pp.

Yukinawa, M., and S. Mio.

1990. Preliminary report on the distribution of small-sized

marine debris in Suruga Bay. In Proceedings of the second

international conference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989,

Honolulu, HI (R. S. Shomura and M. L. Godfrey, eds.), p.

325-330. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-154.

Zonfrillo, B.

1985. Petrels eating contraceptives, polythene and plastic

beads. Br. Birds 78:360-351.

Zsolnay, A.

1987. Spatial and temporal variation of pelagic tar in the

Mediterranean Sea. Chemosphere 16:399-404.